Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
12 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL all, as Reuss observed, “Ideas of the Apocalypse are so widely different that a summary notice of the exegetical literature, mingling all together, would be inexpedient. “4 3 Although he never wrote a commentary on Revelation, w that master theologian and exegete Benjamin B. Warfield proffered the following observation regarding the book: “The boldness of its symbolism makes it the most dificult book of the Bible: it has always been the most variously understood, the most arbitrarily interpreted, the most exegetically tortured.”4 5 Milton Terry in his 1911 classic, Biblical He-rm.eneutics (which is still widely employed in seminaries today), noted that “no portion of the Holy Scriptures has been the subject of so much controversy and of so many varying interpretations as the Apocalypse of John.”% Eminent church historian Philip Schaff cautioned that “no book has been more misunderstood and abused; none calls for greater modesty and reserve in interpretation. “4 7 Swete agreed: To comment on this great prophecy is a harder task than to comment on a Gospel, and he who undertakes it exposes himself to the charge of presumption. I have been led to venture upon what I know to be dangerous ground. . . . . . . . The challenge [to unravel the Revelation] was accepted almost from the first, but with results which shew by their wide divergence the dilliculties of the task. Schools of Apocalyptic interpretation have arisen, varying not only in detail, but in principle.w Isbon T. Beckwith has suggested that Revelation probably stands without parallel in this regard throughout all range of literature: “No 43. Eduard Wilhelm Eugen Reuss, History of the Sacred Scri@mJ of th New Testammt (Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1884), p. 155. 44. He did write several important theological treatises on various aspects of Revelation and Revelation studies, such as his entry under “Revelation” in Philip Schti, cd., A Religious Emyclofiediu: Or Dictionmy of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Pra&al Theolo~ (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1883), vol. 3; his “The Apocalypse” (1886); “The Millennium and the Apocalypse” (1904); etc. 45. Wartield, “Revelation,” in Scha~ Er@opedza 3:2034. 46. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Herm.meutws (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [1911] 1974), p. 466. 47. Schaff, Htstoy 1:826. 48. Swete, Revelation, pp. xii, ccvii.
Revelation Studies 13 other book, whether in sacred or profane literature, has received in whole or in part so many different interpretations. Doubtless no other book has so perplexed biblical students throughout the Christian centuries down to our own time. “4 9 Some biblical scholars are severe in their analysis of the interpretive attempts on Revelation among commentators. Walter F. Adeney noted that “imagination runs riot with the elaborate fancies of this marvelous book. “5° Anthropologist and commentator Vacher Burch in his thought-provoking Anthropology and the Apocalypse lamented: “The Book of thz Revelation of Jesus Christ is the most dificult writing in the New Testament. No plainer proof of this is needed than the fact that most often it has been artificially sequestered so as to yield strange chronology and stranger sense, by the ignorant and the wise. The long history of its interpretation seems to demonstrate that the majority has desired it to be only a semi-magical writing.”51 With evident concern, Donald W. Richardson observed that “the ‘lunatic fringe’ of thinking on the times and seasons and last things of history has always revelled in the Revelation.”5 2 With a concern akin to that of Richardson, Greville Lewis complained that “through the centuries this book has been the happy hunting ground of the cranks who believed that its cryptic messages were meant to refer to the events of their own troubled age.”5 3 William Barclay follows suit in his statement that it has “become the playground of religious eccentries.”5 4 On and on the calls to caution stretch: O. T. Allis, Ralph Earle, G. R. Beasley-Murray, A. Berkeley Mickelson, 55 and a host of other commentators and theologians agree to its perplexing difficulty. C. 49. Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apoca~jue of John: Stuo!res m Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1919] 1967), p. 1. 50. Adeney, Bzblical Introduction 2467. 51. Burch, Anthropolo~, p. vii. 52. Donald W. Richardson, The Rewlation of Jesus Chn.d (Richmond: John Knox, [1939] 1964), p. 12. 53. Greville P. Lewis, An Approach to New I%tame.t (London: Epworth, 1954), pp. 244-245. 54. William Barclay, The Rerxlatwn of John, 2 vols. Daily Study Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 1:1. 55. “The Book of Revelation is a hard book to interpret . .“ (O. T. Allis, Pro@e~ and t/w Church [Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945], p. 210). Ralph Earle, “Preface” to Harvey J. S. Blaney, Revelation, in Earle, ed., Thz Weslyan Bible L%nmenta~, vol. 6, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966), p. 401. Of the interpreting of Revelation, A.
- 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 28 and 29: 10 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL in 1910 th
- 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.
- Page 78 and 79: Irenaew, Bishop of Lyon.s 61 narrat
12 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />
all, as Reuss observed, “Ideas of the Apocalypse are so widely different<br />
that a summary notice of the exegetical literature, mingling all<br />
together, would be inexpedient. “4 3<br />
Although he never wrote a commentary on Revelation, w<br />
that<br />
master theologian and exegete Benjamin B. Warfield proffered the<br />
following observation regarding the book: “The boldness of its symbolism<br />
makes it the most dificult book of the Bible: it has always<br />
been the most variously understood, the most arbitrarily interpreted,<br />
the most exegetically tortured.”4 5<br />
Milton Terry in his 1911 classic,<br />
Biblical He-rm.eneutics (which is still widely employed in seminaries<br />
today), noted that “no portion of the Holy Scriptures has been the<br />
subject of so much controversy and of so many varying interpretations<br />
as the Apocalypse of John.”% Eminent church historian Philip<br />
Schaff cautioned that “no book has been more misunderstood and<br />
abused; none calls for greater modesty and reserve in interpretation.<br />
“4 7<br />
Swete agreed:<br />
To comment on this great prophecy is a harder task than to comment<br />
on a Gospel, and he who undertakes it exposes himself to the charge<br />
of presumption. I have been led to venture upon what I know to be<br />
dangerous ground. . . .<br />
. . . .<br />
The challenge [to unravel the Revelation] was accepted almost from<br />
the first, but with results which shew by their wide divergence the<br />
dilliculties of the task. Schools of Apocalyptic interpretation have<br />
arisen, varying not only in detail, but in principle.w<br />
Isbon T. Beckwith has suggested that Revelation probably stands<br />
without parallel in this regard throughout all range of literature: “No<br />
43. Eduard Wilhelm Eugen Reuss, History of the Sacred Scri@mJ of th New Testammt<br />
(Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1884), p. 155.<br />
44. He did write several important theological treatises on various aspects of Revelation<br />
and Revelation studies, such as his entry under “Revelation” in Philip Schti, cd., A<br />
Religious Emyclofiediu: Or Dictionmy of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Pra&al Theolo~<br />
(New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1883), vol. 3; his “The Apocalypse” (1886); “The<br />
Millennium and the Apocalypse” (1904); etc.<br />
45. Wartield, “Revelation,” in Scha~ Er@opedza 3:2034.<br />
46. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Herm.meutws (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, [1911] 1974),<br />
p. 466.<br />
47. Schaff, Htstoy 1:826.<br />
48. Swete, Revelation, pp. xii, ccvii.
Change language