Before Jerusalem Fell
by Kenneth L. Gentry by Kenneth L. Gentry
20 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL Regarding the biblical record, Berkhofhas rightly asserted: “For the correct understanding of a writing or discourse, it is of the utmost importance to know for whom it was first of all intended. This applies particularly to those books of the Bible that are of an occasional character, such as the prophetical books and the New Testament Epistles.” 11 To his sampling could be added Revelation, as well. Allen and Grensted have noted in regard to Revelation particularly that “the question of the date of the publication of the Revelation is of great importance for the interpretation of the book. . . . Much of ~ohn’s] language, therefore, can only be understood through the medium of historical knowledge.” 12 Guthrie, who sides with those in the late date camp, speaks of the matter of the date of Revelation somewhat less forcefully. Yet he, too, observes that the question is significant. He feels that the main purpose is unaffected by the dating question, but admits that the question of date may be necessary for “arriving at a satisfactory interpretation of the book. ” 13 Terry uses Revelation as a particularly illustrative example of this grammatico-historical principle: The great importance of ascertaining the historical standpoint of an author is notably illustrated by the controversy over the date of the Apocalypse of John. If that prophetical book was written before the destruction of Jerusale@ a number of its particular allusions must most naturally be understood as referring to that city and its fall. It however, it was written at the end of the reign of Domitian (about A.D. 96), as many have believed, another system of interpretation is necessary to explain the historical allusions.’4 Guthrie aside, it can be argued that the matter with which this study is concerned speaks to a question of the utmost significance in the right understanding of this important and intriguing book. Whether Revelation was written early or not has a tremendous bearing upon the direction interpreters may take in its exposition. If the destruction of the Temple looms in the near future for the author, it would seem that historically verifiable events within the prophecies could be 11. Berkhof, Riru#es, pp. 124-125. 12. Willoughby C. Allen and L. W. Grensted, Introduc&wn to & Booh of the New ZMmnent, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. &T. Clark, 1929), p. 278. 13. Guthrie, Introdudion, p. 949. 14. Terry, Hermenadks, p, 237.
Th Approach to the Qustion of Dating 21 discerned with a heightened degree of confidence. A rather obvious stumbling block would be placed before the careless interpreter to deter extravagance. If the book was written two and one-half decades after the destruction of the Temple, however, then the prophecies are necessarily open to an extrapolation into the most distant future, and to the exclusion of the important events of A.D. 67-70. Hence, the whole bearing of Revelation on New Testament eschatology may well be altered by the determination of the matter before us. Assumptions and Limitations Before actually entering into the argument for the early date of Revelation, it will be necessary to mention briefly certain methodological matters regarding the present work’s assumptions and limitations. Regardless of how thorough and exhaustive a researcher may attempt to be, no one investigating any subject can hope to deal with every single facet and implication of his topic. Only the mind of God exhaustively knows all things. Furthermore, neither is it necessary, particularly if there are available adequate treatments of the various related questions. And in order to be both honest for the critic’s sake and helpful to the student, it is advisable that a researcher cite the assumptions and limitations of a particular project before actually engaging the topic. Some of the more fundamental assumptions and limitations in this work include the following. Canonici~ First, the most important assumption governing the writer is that of the canonicity of Revelation. As indicated before, Revelation is one of the books of the Protestant canon that was much debated in early Church history. Nevertheless, its place in the canon is accepted today by all evangelical and conservative Christians. Its canonicity has been ably argued in the standard conservative commentaries and introductions. Although an investigation of the dating of Revelation (or any book of the Bible, for that matter) does not demand this presupposition, nevertheless it is not without significance. The importance of this assumption lies in the fact that it demands the devout treatment of the topic at hand by the researcher. What is being dealt with is the Covenant Word of the Living God; no cavalier approach to the issue is tolerable. The research presented below is written with a strong
- 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 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 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
- Page 82 and 83: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons 65 upon t
- Page 84 and 85: Ireruzeus, Bishop of Lpns 67 John c
- Page 86 and 87: Clement of Alexandria 69 ~17E161j y
Th Approach to the Qustion of Dating 21<br />
discerned with a heightened degree of confidence. A rather obvious<br />
stumbling block would be placed before the careless interpreter to<br />
deter extravagance. If the book was written two and one-half decades<br />
after the destruction of the Temple, however, then the prophecies are<br />
necessarily open to an extrapolation into the most distant future, and<br />
to the exclusion of the important events of A.D. 67-70. Hence, the<br />
whole bearing of Revelation on New Testament eschatology may<br />
well be altered by the determination of the matter before us.<br />
Assumptions and Limitations<br />
<strong>Before</strong> actually entering into the argument for the early date of<br />
Revelation, it will be necessary to mention briefly certain methodological<br />
matters regarding the present work’s assumptions and<br />
limitations. Regardless of how thorough and exhaustive a researcher<br />
may attempt to be, no one investigating any subject can hope to deal<br />
with every single facet and implication of his topic. Only the mind<br />
of God exhaustively knows all things. Furthermore, neither is it<br />
necessary, particularly if there are available adequate treatments of<br />
the various related questions. And in order to be both honest for the<br />
critic’s sake and helpful to the student, it is advisable that a researcher<br />
cite the assumptions and limitations of a particular project<br />
before actually engaging the topic. Some of the more fundamental<br />
assumptions and limitations in this work include the following.<br />
Canonici~<br />
First, the most important assumption governing the writer is that<br />
of the canonicity of Revelation. As indicated before, Revelation is one<br />
of the books of the Protestant canon that was much debated in early<br />
Church history. Nevertheless, its place in the canon is accepted today<br />
by all evangelical and conservative Christians. Its canonicity has<br />
been ably argued in the standard conservative commentaries and<br />
introductions.<br />
Although an investigation of the dating of Revelation (or any<br />
book of the Bible, for that matter) does not demand this presupposition,<br />
nevertheless it is not without significance. The importance of<br />
this assumption lies in the fact that it demands the devout treatment<br />
of the topic at hand by the researcher. What is being dealt with is the<br />
Covenant Word of the Living God; no cavalier approach to the issue<br />
is tolerable. The research presented below is written with a strong
Change language