Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
352 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL As a matter of fact, several of the early fathers held a distinctly preteristic interpretation of Daniel 9!W In Cyprian we have clear reference to Matthew 24 as referring to Jerusalem’s A.D. 70 fall.G5 In the entirety of Treatise 12 he is dealing with testimonies against the Jews, including Christ’s prophecies. Surely it may not be stated, as do House and Ice: “Why is it that all of the early fathers, when referring to Revelation and Matthew 24, see these as future events?”GG Nero and Revelation House and Ice write: “If Chilton could show that Nero is the ruler spoken of in Revelation, then he would have a major victory for his view. But he cannot. “67 As I have shown in great detail many lines of evidence converge upon Nero‘8: (1) His place as the sixth among the Roman emperors, (2) his being followed by a seventh, brief reigning emperor (Galba), (3) his name’s numerical value of 666, (4) his living while the temple still stood, (5) the prominence of his persecution in first century Christianity, and more. There is an old adage: If the shoe fits, wear it. Nero’s footprints are all over Revelation. 64. For a discussion of early interpretive approaches to Daniel 9, see Louis E. Knowles j “The Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel in the Early Fathers,” Westmimter Theologtial JouraQl 7:2 (May, 1945), 137-138. Actual references include: Ttw Epistle of Barnabas 16:6; Tertullian, AgawA t/u Jews 8 (despite being a Montanist and therefore premillennial!); Ongen, Matthew 24:15; Julius Africanus, Chronography (relevant portions preserved in Eusebius, Preparation fw tb Gospel 10:10 and Demonstratwm of the Gospel 8); Eusebius (Dermmutratiom 8); and Augustine in his 199th epistle. 65. Cypnan, Treatises, 12:1:6, 15. See especially Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathm, 5:507-511. 66. House and Ice, Dominion T/uolo~, p. 258 (emphasis mine). In the final analysis, however, one must wonder how their argument carries weight in light of the Plymouth Brethren roots of dispensatfonalism. After all, it is the chief proponent of dispensationalism, Charles C. Ryrie, who defends dispensationalism fmm “the charge of recency” by labeling such a charge a “straw man” and arguing from history as a “fallacy.” In addition he writes: “The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong . . .“ (Dirpensationah.mz Today [Chicago: Moody, 1965], p. 66). 67. Ibid., p. 2.59. 68. See above, chapters 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 18.
A Response to House and Ice 353 Conclusion Space fails our responding to other aspects of the argument by House and Ice. Perhaps I will develop them at more length in the book-length response to their Dominion Theolo~. Yet I believe that if anyone were to consider the few problems associated with their Chapter 12, which I have noted above, he would quickly see that as presented,‘g the argument by House and Ice is fraught with misconception and error. Though they disparage employing the “debater’s technique” of casting “doubt upon the reliability of the source,” I must confess that as far as the “Reconstruction debate” goes, I seriously question the reliability of House and Ice. 69. House and Ice note that theirs is but the first of several book-length responses to Reconstructionism in the works (Dominion Tholo,g, p. 9). Perhaps they were a little too hasty jn attempting to beat the others to the punch. It may be that the other responses will be a little more careful in their presentations and will require analysis from a different perspective.
- Page 314 and 315: 18 THE NERO REDIVZVUS MYTH Morris
- Page 316 and 317: 302 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL was heale
- Page 318 and 319: 304 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL does not
- Page 320 and 321: 306 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL As a matt
- Page 322 and 323: 308 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Early Dat
- Page 324 and 325: 310 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Nero’s
- Page 326 and 327: 312 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL well-know
- Page 328 and 329: 314 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL this is t
- Page 330 and 331: 316 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL head/king
- Page 332 and 333: 19 THE CONDITION OF THE SEVEN CHURC
- Page 334 and 335: 320 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL an enrich
- Page 336 and 337: 322 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL necessari
- Page 338 and 339: 324 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL authors h
- Page 340 and 341: 326 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Furthermo
- Page 342 and 343: 328 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL he left t
- Page 344 and 345: 330 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Another i
- Page 346 and 347: 20 CONCLUDING REMARKS In the field
- Page 348 and 349: Concluding Remarks 335 their statem
- Page 350 and 351: Concluding Remarks 337 men” to Ch
- Page 352 and 353: 340 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Although
- Page 354 and 355: 342 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Clearing
- Page 356 and 357: 344 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL “Early
- Page 358 and 359: 346 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL John’s
- Page 360 and 361: 348 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL from the
- Page 362 and 363: 350 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL In his Ec
- Page 366 and 367: SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY I: MODERN WRITI
- Page 368 and 369: Select Bibliography I: Modern Writi
- Page 370 and 371: Select Bibliography I: Modern Writi
- Page 372 and 373: Select Bibliography 1: Modern Writi
- Page 374 and 375: Select Bibliography I: Modern Writi
- Page 376 and 377: Select Bibliography Z: Modern Wi-it
- Page 378 and 379: Select Bibliography Z: Modem Writin
- Page 380 and 381: Select Bibliography 1: Modem Wi-iti
- Page 382 and 383: Select Bibliography I: Modern Writi
- Page 384 and 385: Select Bibliography I: Modern Writi
- Page 386 and 387: ANCIENT SOURCES Agbar th King and A
- Page 388 and 389: Philostratus. Li@ of Apollonius of
- Page 390 and 391: 380 11:6-9 11:9 19:1 34:11 46:6 48:
- Page 392 and 393: 382 2:40 2:41 243 2:46 3:1 3:13 3:1
- Page 394 and 395: 1:17 1:19 2 2:3 2:3, 13 2:4,5 2:5,
- Page 396 and 397: 386 226,7, 133 12,20 22:6,10, 164 1
- Page 398 and 399: 388 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Brown, Da
- Page 400 and 401: 390 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Harrison,
- Page 402 and 403: 392 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL 66n, 286n
- Page 404 and 405: 394 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Volter, 1
- Page 406 and 407: 396 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Papias (S
- Page 408 and 409: 398 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL identity,
- Page 410 and 411: 400 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Rome - em
- Page 412 and 413: 402 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL James the
352 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL<br />
As a matter of fact, several of the early fathers held a distinctly<br />
preteristic interpretation of Daniel 9!W<br />
In Cyprian we have clear reference to Matthew 24 as referring<br />
to <strong>Jerusalem</strong>’s A.D. 70 fall.G5 In the entirety of Treatise 12 he is<br />
dealing with testimonies against the Jews, including Christ’s prophecies.<br />
Surely it may not be stated, as do House and Ice: “Why is it that<br />
all of the early fathers, when referring to Revelation and Matthew<br />
24, see these as future events?”GG<br />
Nero and Revelation<br />
House and Ice write: “If Chilton could show that Nero is the ruler<br />
spoken of in Revelation, then he would have a major victory for his<br />
view. But he cannot. “67 As I have shown in great detail many lines<br />
of evidence converge upon Nero‘8:<br />
(1) His place as the sixth among<br />
the Roman emperors, (2) his being followed by a seventh, brief<br />
reigning emperor (Galba), (3) his name’s numerical value of 666, (4)<br />
his living while the temple still stood, (5) the prominence of his<br />
persecution in first century Christianity, and more. There is an old<br />
adage: If the shoe fits, wear it. Nero’s footprints are all over Revelation.<br />
64. For a discussion of early interpretive approaches to Daniel 9, see Louis E.<br />
Knowles j “The Interpretation of the Seventy Weeks of Daniel in the Early Fathers,”<br />
Westmimter Theologtial JouraQl 7:2 (May, 1945), 137-138. Actual references include: Ttw<br />
Epistle of Barnabas 16:6; Tertullian, AgawA t/u Jews 8 (despite being a Montanist and<br />
therefore premillennial!); Ongen, Matthew 24:15; Julius Africanus, Chronography (relevant<br />
portions preserved in Eusebius, Preparation fw tb Gospel 10:10 and Demonstratwm of the<br />
Gospel 8); Eusebius (Dermmutratiom 8); and Augustine in his 199th epistle.<br />
65. Cypnan, Treatises, 12:1:6, 15. See especially Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene<br />
Fathm, 5:507-511.<br />
66. House and Ice, Dominion T/uolo~, p. 258 (emphasis mine). In the final analysis,<br />
however, one must wonder how their argument carries weight in light of the Plymouth<br />
Brethren roots of dispensatfonalism. After all, it is the chief proponent of dispensationalism,<br />
Charles C. Ryrie, who defends dispensationalism fmm “the charge of recency” by<br />
labeling such a charge a “straw man” and arguing from history as a “fallacy.” In addition<br />
he writes: “The fact that something was taught in the first century does not make it right<br />
(unless taught in the canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught<br />
until the nineteenth century does not make it wrong . . .“ (Dirpensationah.mz Today<br />
[Chicago: Moody, 1965], p. 66).<br />
67. Ibid., p. 2.59.<br />
68. See above, chapters 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 18.