Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
14 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Milo Connick states the case well when he writes: “The book of Revelation has the dubious distinction of being the most misunderstood composition in the New Testament. Many readers don’t know what to think of the writing, and others make altogether too much of it. ”5G Despite the very real diiliculties associated with the book, however, it is “given by inspiration of God and is profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16). Thus, surely it is the case that Swete overstated the matter when he wrote: “The key to the interpretation disappeared with the generation to which the book was addressed . . . , and apart from any clue to its immediate reference, it was little else but a maze of inexplicable mysteries. “5 7 Neither can we agree with Allen who despairingly lamented that “the book is, and must remain for the most part, unintelligible to the average reader.”5 8 Causes of D@ulp There is a variety of reasons that either independently or collectively have caused the would-be interpreter to stumble. Foremost among them seem to be the following (which, due to our main purpose, will not be given extensive consideration): First, unfamiliarity with its literary style. Revelation is considered by most scholars to be of the literary genre known as “apocalyptic.”5g This style is not unique to Revelation among canonical books – though it is not used elsewhere in canonical literature to the extent it is in Revelation. Go Apocalyptic imagery may be found in Daniel, Ezekiel, Berkeley Mickelson noted with mild understatement, “This is no small task” (Interpreting the Bible [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963] p. 280). G. R. Beasley-Murray comments that “Rwelation is probably the most disputed and diflicuh book in the New Testament” (G. R, Beasley-Murray, Herschell H. Hobbs, Frank Robbins, Revelation: 2%ee Vitwpoirzt$ [Nashville: Broadman, 1977], p. 5). 56. C. Milo Connick, Tb New Tfitamsnt: An Introductwn to ItJ Hi.rto~, Literature, and Thought (Belmont, CA: Dickenson, 1972), p. 406. 57. Swete, Revelation, p. cxix 58. Willoughby C. Allen and L. W. Grensted, Introdwtion to the Books of the New Testarrmd, 3d ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929), p. 273. 59. The source of apocalyptic imagery, contrary to secularistic anthropologists, is not first century apocalypticism, but Old Testament era canonical prophetic imagery. The first century apocalyptic movement itself grew up in a literary milieu dominated by the Old Testament. Revelation is genealogically related to the Old Testament, not to non-canonical mythology. See note 1 above 60. “There is only one other Apocalypse which may be compared with [Daniel], and
Revelation Studies 15 and Isaiah most notably, but it is sprinkled throughout Scripture in numerous prophetic sections, including the teaching of Christ. “Of all the books of the New Testament this is the farthest removed from modern life and thought. . . . Apocalyptic has long ceased to be, as it once was, a popular branch of literature. “c’ This is especially troublesome for the “face value” school of interpreters. Second, overlooking its original author and audience. In a quest for “relevance,” commentators of the historicist and futurist schools seem to forget that John addressed Revelation to real, historical churches (Rev. 1:4, 11) about pressing and dire problems that he and they faced in the first century (Rev. 1:9 and chapters 2-3). In doing so a most fundamental rule of hermeneutics is breached. Two hermeneutics texts may be cited to illustrate the importance of this principie. Berkhof’s helpful study, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, teaches that hermeneutics “is properly accomplished only by the readers’ transposing themselves into the time and spirit of the author.”c2 Mickelsen’s widely used Interpreting the Bible notes: “Simply stated, the task of interpreters of the bible is to find out the meaning of a statement (command, question) for the author and for the first hearers or readers, and thereupon to transmit that meaning to modern readers.”c3 Needless to say, removing the setting of the book twenty or more centuries into the future is not conducive to a correct apprehension of its interpretation. Third, misconstrual of its original intent. Revelation has two fundamental purposes relative to ‘its original hearers. In the first place, it was designed to steel the first century Church against the gathering storm of persecution, which was reaching an unnerving crescendo of theretofore unknown proportions and intensity. A new and major feature of that persecu~ion- was the entrance of imperial Rome onto the scene. The first historical persecution of the Church by imperial Rome was by Nero Caesar from A.D. 64 to A.D. 68.64 that is the New Testament book of Revelation” (Edward J. Young, The Prophq of Daniel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949], p. 22). 61. Allen, Introduztwn, p. 273. 62. Louis Berkhof, Ptinci}les of Biblical Znterpretrztian (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1950] 1974), p. 11. 63. Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bibte, p. 5. 64. See later discussion in Chapter 17.
- 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 30 and 31: 12 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL all, as Re
- 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
- Page 80 and 81: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lpns 63 accept
Revelation Studies 15<br />
and Isaiah most notably, but it is sprinkled throughout Scripture in<br />
numerous prophetic sections, including the teaching of Christ. “Of<br />
all the books of the New Testament this is the farthest removed from<br />
modern life and thought. . . . Apocalyptic has long ceased to be, as<br />
it once was, a popular branch of literature. “c’ This is especially<br />
troublesome for the “face value” school of interpreters.<br />
Second, overlooking its original author and audience. In a quest<br />
for “relevance,” commentators of the historicist and futurist schools<br />
seem to forget that John addressed Revelation to real, historical<br />
churches (Rev. 1:4, 11) about pressing and dire problems that he and<br />
they faced in the first century (Rev. 1:9 and chapters 2-3). In doing<br />
so a most fundamental rule of hermeneutics is breached. Two hermeneutics<br />
texts may be cited to illustrate the importance of this principie.<br />
Berkhof’s helpful study, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, teaches<br />
that hermeneutics “is properly accomplished only by the readers’<br />
transposing themselves into the time and spirit of the author.”c2<br />
Mickelsen’s widely used Interpreting the Bible notes: “Simply stated,<br />
the task of interpreters of the bible is to find out the meaning of a<br />
statement (command, question) for the author and for the first<br />
hearers or readers, and thereupon to transmit that meaning to modern<br />
readers.”c3 Needless to say, removing the setting of the book<br />
twenty or more centuries into the future is not conducive to a correct<br />
apprehension of its interpretation.<br />
Third, misconstrual of its original intent. Revelation has two<br />
fundamental purposes relative to ‘its original hearers. In the first<br />
place, it was designed to steel the first century Church against the<br />
gathering storm of persecution, which was reaching an unnerving<br />
crescendo of theretofore unknown proportions and intensity. A new<br />
and major feature of that persecu~ion- was the entrance of imperial<br />
Rome onto the scene. The first historical persecution of the Church<br />
by imperial Rome was by Nero Caesar from A.D. 64 to A.D. 68.64<br />
that is the New Testament book of Revelation” (Edward J. Young, The Prophq of Daniel<br />
[Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949], p. 22).<br />
61. Allen, Introduztwn, p. 273.<br />
62. Louis Berkhof, Ptinci}les of Biblical Znterpretrztian (Grand Rapids: Baker, [1950]<br />
1974), p. 11.<br />
63. Mickelsen, Interpreting the Bibte, p. 5.<br />
64. See later discussion in Chapter 17.