The Beast of Revelation

T
HE BEAST OF REV-
ELATION, by Dr. Ken-
neth L. Gentry Jr. Pub-
lished by the Institute for Christian Eco-
nomics, Tyler, Texas 1989. 188 pp.,
general & scripture indices and 38 pg.
publisher's preface, paperback.
The publisher has executed his craft
well in this handsome paperback- on-
ly three typographic errors (pp. xxxvii,
70 & back cover): excellent for an
important flrst edition of a major
work. The cover simulates the os-
tentatious style of today's sensa-
tionalistic prophecy volumes, the
background image of ancient Ro-
man ruins yielding the only subtle
clue to the surprises between the
covers.
This volume is condensed from
Dr. Gentry's doctoral dissertation,
Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the
Book of Revelation, also being
published in 1989 by I.C.E. Fear
not! This book is easy to read and
understand; in fact, it is a real page-
turner. I read it cover to cover in
one sitting. This result obtains
from the controversial subject mat-
ter and the author's intriguing hand-
ling thereof.
The Publisher's Preface by Dr.
Gary North deserves separate con-
sideration. This prefatory essay
omits (1) derision, (2) deification
of the author, and (3) promotion of
the author's work as canonical. It
is one of the best-written essays
Dr. North has ever penned This
particular preface, unlike its pre-
decessors, materially enhances the
volume to which it is annexed
The preface suggests that an out-
standing writer has been lurking all
these years under the bristling verbiage.
As to the volume proper, the reader
is in for a surprise. Dr. Gentry identi-
fies a narrowly-deflned topic and refuses
to allow his focus to wander. Prophecy
A review article
by Martin G. Selbrede
books are generally sprawling, "kitchen-
sink" affairs: this one is different. Dr.
Gentry delivers what he promises at the
outset, to wit, a focused, sustained argu-
ment in favor of two far-reaching pro-
positions: (1) that the Revelation of
St. John was written before 70 A.D.,
and (2) the Beast of Revelation was the
Roman Emperor, Nero. Doubtless, the
derivation of this volume from a dis-
-
-
--
--
- -
--
--
...... ...__
--
---
--
---
----
------
------


sertation helps keep the argument un-
waveringly on track. While I admire the
form of Dr. Gentry's book-length argu-
ment, the lay reader will find the con-
tent to be of greater moment We turn
our attention therefore to the general the-
sis of the book.
Several major schools of
tion of Revelation have arisen during
the last twenty centuries. Futurism re-
gards the bulk of Revelation to be yet
unfulfilled, its prophecies to be played
out in the near future. Preterism holds
the bulk of Revelation to have been
fulfilled in the frrst century A.D. Over-
simplified, the Historicist, Spiritual,
Idealist, and Apocalyptic schools gen-
erally hold that Revelation spans
the years between the fust and se-
condadvents (hereafter, the inter-ad-
vent period), with considerable di-
versity as to details. For our pur-
poses, it is enough to see that the
Past, the Present, and the Future
have all been advanced as the pro-
per home for Revelation's pro-
phecies. Dr. Gentry's book pro-
motes the preterist interpretation,
and is the most definitive exposi-
tion to date thereof.
The various millennialist op-
tions invariably intrude into any
discussion of Revelation, in con-
sideration of its twentieth chapter.
The relationship between millen-
nial viewpoints and the above-
listed schools of interpretation de-
serves some attention. Premillen-
nialism is almost unifonnly futur-
ist in outlook, and hostile to all al-
ternate schools, Amillennialism
has generally favored both inter-
advent and preterist interpretations,
depending on the spokesman; its
millennia] tenets are compatible
with either option, and some ex-
positors even blend in futurist de-
tails.
What concerns me with respect
to modem (as opposed to historic)
postmillennialism is its present single-
minded advocacy of preterism, and the
unnatural dichotomy its exponents ad-
vance in defense of same. Futurism or
Preterism: Choose Ye. Yet, the inter-ad-
vent interpretations are wholly ignored.
The Counsel of Chalcedon October,1989 page11
Any Christian reading postmillennial
literature of this decade would conclude
that preterism and postmillennialism
are inseparable, and that ali postmil-
lennialists are necessarily preterists.
This erroneous notion has cued premil-
lennialists to attack postmillennialism
by discrediting preterism. More to the
point, a persistent militant preterism
will quickly divide postmillennialism
into two camps: a sad fate for a move-
ment admittedly thin on numbers in
tlriscenttrry.
This "Pi'eterism Or Bust" attitude of
today's p<>stmillennialists could come
back ort our heads, as this review wiil
attempt to illustrate. Where does Dr.
Gentry stand with respect to this grow-
ing problem? Queried over the phone,
he a!fll'llled his commitment to postmil-
leimialism f'.ti'st, preteriSm second And
if preterism were erroneous? His post-
millennial position would not in the
least be affected, because futurism Isn't
the only remaining option. Historical
postmillennialism has also strongly ad-
vancedmanywell-arguedinter-adventin-
terpretations of Revelation. I fmd Dr.
Gentry's focus heartening. His book is
silent on this particular issue, but Dr.
North's introduction does not fail to
shackle postmillennialism to preterism.
We shall have occasion to consider the
wisdom of this strategem upOn com-
pleting our critique of preterism as Dr.
Gentry has advanced iL
It is worth repeating bere that the
criticism of Dr. Gentry's position vis-a-
. Vis Revelation has no beari.ng what-
soever on the merits of postmillennial-
ism. To put my warning in black and
white: should any premillennialist
qu<>te from my critique in an attempt to
give postmillennialism a black eye,
God will judge between htm and me,
whether he has dealt righteously. with
this material in its entire context. (The
passion this debate arouses motivates
me to forewarn any potentially oppor-
tunistic futurists out there in this gentle
but firm way -- I didn't write this re-
view in order to place a sword into the
hands of postmillennialisrn's . oppo-
nents.) This being said, let us turn to
Dr. Gentry's argument.
"[A] lll.isapprehension of the date of
its writing can literally turn Revelation
ori its head, rendering its proper ex-
position impossible. Whereas the prob-
lem of the stYle of Revelation renders
the exposmon of its details difficult,
the adoption of a wrong date for its
writing renders its specific metl(ling
impossible. If Revelation prophesies
events related to the destruction of Jeru-
salem in A.D. 70, then to hold to a date
of composition after that event would
miSs John;s whole point." (pg. 6). Here
is the key to Dr. Gentry's exposition.
There is much at stake when we choose
between the early date (pre-70 A.D;) and
late date (c. 95 AD.) for Revelation's
composition. If composed prior to rem-
salem's fall, the preterist interpretation
of Revelation would all but be estab-
iished, and today's popular prophecy
,charts wouid become chaff and blow
away. Yet, care must be taken here as
to our motives as expositors: is our pre-
t'eri.sm, to use a phrase from William
Lee's 1881 cortunentary on Revelation,
actually a "subjective theriry ... put forth
in the interest of antichiliasm [anti-
premillennialism]"? Dr. Gentry's text re-
veals a spirit of humility incompatible
with such a charge. The only remaining
concern is whether the book's thesis has
been appropriated by some neo-sons of
thunder primarily for its value as a blud-
geon for premil-bashing. Time will
soon tell whether such abuse of Dr.
Gentry's thesis will prevail.
In prosecuting his thesis, Dr. Gentry
sets forth more credible explanations of
key passages in Revelation than his im-
mediate predecessor David Chilton did
in his preterist magnum opus, The
Days of Vengeance (Dominion Press,
1987). For example, Chilton had argued
that the . Beast's mortal wound cor-
responded to a nascent Christian coup
as conversions spread upward to 'the
imperial throne -- the reversal of this
trend s ~ g renewed pagan persecu-
. tion of Christianity (DOV, pp. 330-
331). Dr. Gentry treats the wound as
the actual suicidal death ofNero and the
consequent bloody interregnum. On this
hypothesis, the revival of the beast
corresponds to the advent of the Flavian
emperors, setting the nearly-toppled
Rome back on its feet (Chapter 7:
Revival of the Beast; e8pecially, pg'
74). Where they differ, the correlations
in Dr. Gentry's thesis appear better
supported than their counterparts _ in
Chilton's. Dr. Gentry's work is free of
the speculative eleii\ents occasiomilly
interspersed throughout Chilton's book
(elements regarded by some as being of
The Counsel of Chalcedon October,1989 page 12
questionable orthodoxy), but then Dr.
Gentry didn't attempt the noble but dan-
gerous task of pushing the frontiers of
, theology forward as did Clu1ton.
br. Gentry's work is divided into two
complementary sections, Who Is The
Beast (pp. 380) and When Was
RevelatitJn Written? (pp. 81-188). In
examining the flow of Dr. Gentry's
argument, it is our purpose to examine
the validity of Dr. Gentry's logic, ex-
posing logical fallacies as they appear
before us, whether . . with respect to
dating Revelation, or identifying the
B. east. It is this reviewer's contention
that it is at least theQretically possib1e
f ~ a truly iron-clad argument . to be
sustained for preterism, and that . Dr.
Gentry's thesis is within reach of thiS
goal if revised to accommodate . the
following critical observations. Dr.
Gentry has traveled 80% of the way to
the desired goal: but the last few lniles
are over the roughest terrain. We des-
cribe the critical landscape below.
Dr. Gentry identifies the Beast witlt
imperial Rome, the seven heads corre-
sponding to Julius Caesar, Augustus,
Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero and
Galba (pg. 104). Imperial Rome is in-
dicated ~ u to the signal reference to
seven mountains at Rev. 17:9 (pg. 12-
13). Let's stop here and examine wheth-
er these. conchtsions are compelling, or
only plausible.
The passage at Rev. 17:9 states that
the seven heitds are seven mountains.
They are also seven kings. Dr. Gentry
docUIIWnts this as a double-referent (pg.
69-70). The ' imagery, says he, shiftS.
We can grant this, .but the question
remaining is this: is this the only poS-
sible explanation of the alleged double-
referent? After all, if any one of Dr.
Gentry
1
s assertions haS a plausible alter-
nate explanation, especially a Biblically
supported one, then Dr. Gentry's case is
open to legitimate challenge. In one
hypothesis, for example, the seven
heads span centuries, being identified as
Egypt, Assyria, . Babylon, Persia,
Gieece, Rome (eacb the ascendant world
power of its age) followed by a multipli-
City of kiilgdoins symbolized by the ten
horns on the seventh head (whereby is
predicted that no one kingdom, .save
Christ's, sHall ever have authority over
the whole world after Rome falls), Ac-
cording tci this alternate 'view, we are
living in the age of the symbQlic ten
horns, which intriguingly entails a stag-
gering prediction that ours is the age
when the world will be Christianized
(so David Brown, Commentary at Rev.
13:3, and John Owen, Works Vol. Vlll,
pg. 262ff). The mortal wound would
correspond to the first advent of Christ,
regarded as utterly lethal for Rome so
far as Daniel 2 is concerned: the rock
cut without hands demolishes the
statue. The detail added by John over
and above Daniel's picture regards the
centuries-long delay of Rome's collapse
and subsequent rise of multiple sove-
reignties over the globe.
What then of the seven mountains?
Surely, urges Dr. Gentry, they signify
Rome: they are mountains, and there
are seven of them. It must be observed,
frrst, that there are seven of almost
everything in Revelation. In all
fairness, the correlation with Rome's
seven hills is, so far as numerics are
concerned, gratuitous. But what of the
fact that Revelation 17:9 is talking
about geography, and (from the preterist
viewpoint) a relevant, well-known pre-
70 A.D. piece of real estate? This is in
fact an assumption, which may or not
be right. Are mountains always (or
ever) literal mountains in Revelation?
What about the burning mountain fall-
ing into the sea: is it the top of Vesu-
vius, or rather the downfall of a king-
dom. as Jeremiah Sl would lead us to
conclude? Hengstenberg observes that
mountains are frequendy symbols of
kingdoms, as the starding image of
"mountains of prey" (plunder-moun-
tains that attack other mountains) from
Psalm 76:4 conveys. Even God's king-
dom is depicted as a mountain (Dan.
2:45). Fairbairn achlally devotes one
whole appendix in his lnJerpretatio11. of
Prophecy to the prophetic use of moun-
tains as symbols for kingdoms.
Conclusion: the non-preterist hy-
pothesis that regards the heads as suc-
cessive world empires has no need to
invoke a double-referent The heads refer
to kingdoms, period, whether termed
kings or mountains: the representation
is uniform. Further, Ibis hypothesis
meets Dr. Gentry's requirement that
John's prophecy be relevant to its im-
mediate audience (whether that audience
be pre-70 AD. as Dr. Gentry presup-
poses, or of Domitianic date, 95-96
A.D.). I would go further and suggest
that the non-preterist hypothesis, by
identifying Rome as being sixth in line
of persecuting empires that have all uni-
formly licked the dust, provides a maxi
mum of comfort and hope to the 1st
century reader that Rome's doom, and
Christ's victory, are solemnly pledged
by the amazing example of God's past
dealings with the Beast in history.
Is Dr. Gentry wrong, then? No, we
haven't proven him wrong at all. We've
simply drawn attention to the fact that
his thesis is in competition with others
that can address the facts of Revelation
as well as his can. Throughout this re-
view, it appears that Dr. Gentry's case
must be continually moved off the
pedestal of Certainty onto the more
modest dais of Plausibility.
Continuing, we find Dr. Gentry as-
serting that the Beast is often spoken of
as an individual (individual human
being, he means - pg. 12). As men
go, he (the Beast, not Dr. Gentry) is the
epitome of evil (pg. 10). We are told
that the identification 666 must there
fore correspond in some way with the
name of an immensely evil man, be-
cause it is "the number of a man." (I
accordingly wonder which individual
man Rev. 22:17 must then be talking
about when referring to the measure of
a man.) To this ad hoc requirement is
appended a recounting of the evil career
of Nero (pg. 14-19), a chillingly de-
tailed account that more than proves the
point. We are not told precisely how it
is that Nero, the Beast, is "cast alive
into the lake of fire" (Rev. 19:20),
considering the tyrant committed sui-
cide before taking the required swim,
but an exposition of problem texts of
this kind must wait tiJI Dr. Gentry's
next opus.
666 is asserted to be the computed
sum of the numeric values of Nero's
name in Hebrew letters (pg. 2939 is a
detailed discussion of considerable
value). The argument is plagued by a
flaw conunon among even the best
Christian scholars: the infonnal logical
fallacy of special pleading, whereby
antagonistic evidence is ignored. Dr.
Gentry missteps his logic most often in
the categories of special pleading and
begging the question: in perspective,
however, it is noteworthy that he truly
takes care to handle almost all objec-
tions to his position, and that examples
of petitio principii, or begging the
question (recasting one's conclusion in
new words and offering it up as an argu-
ment for one's case) occur only eight
times throughout the entire work. The
average book on proPhecy begs the ques-
tion on every other page -- so it is with
justice that this reviewer observes that
Dr. Gentry is not far from an iron-clad
case, if willing to put his shoulder into
a careful revision.
Working backward, let's consider the
number 666. Here, Dr. Gentry must
consider the Beast as being the specific
emperor: the Beast-as-man. The double-
referent hypothesis is again invoked to
The Counsel of Chalcedon October,1989 page 13
accomplish this 'result. Observe that the
double-referent hypothesis may be
right, but it may not be right. So We
ate not necessarily on certain gtotiild
here. Let's assume for the moment that
it is right. Is Nero a good match for
666? The case Dr. Gentry makes for it
is excellent. In fact, it is too good. He
has omitted key considerations and mini-"
rrtized important considerations having
a ttegative bearing on . his hypothesis.
Firstly, Dr. Gentry fails to mention
that Irenaeus. while uncertain of the
name behind the cipher (pg. 37), was
absolutely certain of one thing, that the
computation (if one were even
ranted) should be executed using Greek
letterS. And while Dr. Gentry nomliJa}-
lY addresses objections based on the
Hebrew spelling of Nero (pg. 37-38),
he leaves out a damaging piece of evi-
dence, that Neron Kaiser must be
misspelled to yield 666: the letter yod
is omitted lest the sum be 676 rather
than 666. It was the "discovery" of the
misspelling in the early 1960s that led
F.F. Bruce to finally embrace Nero as
the Beast, but it's awfully skimpy evi-
dence when one considers that the ave-
rage Hebrew calculating out Nero's
name (assuming he knew to annex the
tide) come up with 676 (see
George 1889 Introduction to
the New\ Testament, pg. 243-255, or
folio 56 in Gittin, Babylonian Talmud).
Comparing with John's prophecy, he
would naturally conclude (assuming a
pre-70 A.D. scene here) that Nero
wasn't the man intended. The evidence
fat Nero- 666 is about as well attested
as the spelling of well with three L's,
which appears on the back cover of Dr.
Gentry's book. In what category should
we place evidence of such spellings, and
what argumentative force do they carry?
Was St. John a poor speller?
V(!hat of Dr. Gentry's citation of
Hillers' evidence for a first-century ex-
of the requited misspelling'!
Again, I believe special pleading has
been resorted to here, as the
maic scroll in question (DID; II, 18,
plate 29) dating from the 2nd year of
Nero has not aged gracefully. The word
in question is allegedly composed of 3,
rather than 4, Hebi'ew consonants, trans-
literated QSR. The quiescent yod is
supposedly omitted. But the last two
letters are quite damaged: abrasion and
exfoliation has marred the. scroll. The
damage is severe enoogh to prevent
Hillers from citing the yod's absence as
decisive in itself, since such a small
stroke (prowrtional in size fu the Eng-
lish apostrophe) could easily have been
wiped out by whatever damaged the
adjacent letters. The yod is as
deliberately omitted because insuffiCient
room for the letter is provided between
tbe Q and damaged S. Its absence is in-
fe"ed, with auxiliar}r assutnptions re-
'-garding the scribe's orthography and
tendency to mortise letterforms
pressed. This is not, then, all that
feet or unequivocal a proof. Compared
to the earlier N abothean itiscnption at
Hebron (47 A.D.) that spells_
correctly. the scroll cited by Hillers and
Gentry yields an uncertain result --
leaving the tirst unequivoc(Jl evidence
for :the misspelling to hail from the
third century in Palmyra, not the frrst
from Wadi Mtirabba'at. Moreover,
while Dr. Gentry cites Jastrow's
con in favor of the defective spelling,
there is no guarantee that J is a
witness for the 1st century Hebrew
spelling of Caesar. Jastrow labored
between 1886 and 1903, when the
earliest manuscript of the Babylonian
Talmud even known at the time was a
fragment dated 1123 A.D in the
Bodleian Library. Even if the misspel-
ling were recorded in the earliest dic-
tionary of the Talmud .(Nathan ben
: Yehi'el, 11th century), the correlation
with actual 1st-century practice would
remain speculative. The smoking gun
for Nero=666 could well be a toy
pistol
Ewald and Renan, two outstanding
Semitic scholars of the last eentury,
were also preterists. but they carididly
admitted that 666 could 'only be
extracted from Nero's name by force.
Ewald turned to Caesar of Rome a8 the
solution. yielding the <variant 616.
Renan felt that John may. have used a
defeCtive spelling tO preserve the sym-
metry of the cipher. One may ask, is
there any ancient voice supportive of
Renan's hypothesis? Yes, it is the voice
of Irenaeusl But Irenaeus is
discredited by Gentry on matters his-
torical.
One could ask whether a Hebrew solu'-
tion to the cipher would be useful to
Gentile believers in Rome who didn't
speak Hebrew. This is a simple diffi.
.culty with Dr. Gentry's position, but it
The Counsel of Chalcedon.Octol:ier,, 1989: paga.14.
isn't necessarily insurmountable. Of
more immediate concern would be the
al.ternate hypothesis by Ethel
berf whe.reby 666 is 'Ciearfy
eVidenced on imperial coinage circu
lating during the reigri of Domitian:
Autocrator KA!sar DOMEt'tanos
SEBaitos GErmanilcos (see his Christ
and the Caesars; pg. 179). We have here
again a plausible alternative to Dr.
Gentry's one that has the
advantage of: putting the solution of
666 within the reach of all citizens of
the empire: they need merely examine
the .superscription on the coins in their
piJses and Unless Revelation's
dating can :with certainty be
assigned to pre-70 A.D; .by some other
line of unequivocal evidence, such alter-
nate hypotheses as Stauffer's will con-
tinue to weaken Dr. Gentry's case:
For the record, this reviewer regatds
solution fQr 666 as convincing,
prefeiring rather Vitringa's and Heng-
stenberg's identification from Ezra 2: 13
the name of the Beast is Adonikam.
This solution utilizes no extra-Biblical
considerations whatsoever, tying to-
gether the predicates from the opening
verses of Rev. 13 to fonn the actual
name of the Beast: Adonikam== The Lord
Rises Up, the name of the Beast that
rises up from the sea with the name of
blasphemy on its beads (i.e. the bias
phemy "I am the Lord God''). Though
ultimately inconclusive (the cOrrelation
could be totally accidental), the odds of
a randOm match like this between a rare
occtirrertce of 666 in the Old testament,
the name associated with that number,
and the actual description of bias-
, pheming :Beast rising out of the :sea, is
eXtremely remote. Until I find a.
correlation (and Dr. Gentry 'hasn't
provided a solid one yet),l'll.stick with
Adonikam, as Alford was forced to siick
with Lateinos, for lack of anything
demonstrably better. .
. Before leaving this discussion of
Nero/666, we shoold ,, examine Dr.
Gentry's argument that Nero satisfies
both known textual variants at Rev.
13:18: 666 and 616. Aside from the faet
that any Greek name. ending in omega-
nu can drop 50 from its calculated
Hebrew sum (making Nero a non-
uniq\le solution), this argument en-
tangles its proponents in a dilemma:
evidently. the Solution .to Johnis riddle
. Continued on page 27)
The Beast of Revelation
Continued from page 14
was better known than the riddle itselfl
Copyists transcribing John's text evi-
dently knew Nero was intended. and
inserted either 666 or 616 depending on
whether Nero Kesar or Neron Kesar was
intended Remarkably, the misspelling
of Caesar is supposedly preserved under
both scenarios, yielding 666 and 616
rather than 676 and 626. When Dr.
Gentry affmns (pg. 39) that Nero "is
the only contemporary historical figure
that can possibly fulfill all of the
requirements," he steps out on a limb.
His claim that he has "shown that
[Nero's] name perfectly fits the certain
reading of the text in Revelation 13:18,
which is 666," is simply wrong. A
perfect fit wouldn't be subject to so
many avenues of direct. serious chal-
lenge. That a rationale for Nero=666
can be sustained, who can deny? But
whether more than this has been ac-
complished by Dr. Gentry is still un-
certain.
Dr. Gentry takes into consideration
how fll'St century Christians would inter-
pret John's prophecy. This strategem is
carried out consistently, save for one
possible exception: the identification of
the whore riding the beast Dr. Gentry
apparently equates the harlot, the great
city, with ancient Jerusalem, as did
Chilton before him (I say apparently,
because this is inferred from what Dr.
Gentry says of Jerusalem when discus-
sing Rev. 11:8 when he argues Jerusa-
lem is that passage's "great city" on
pages 122 & 123). If he makes this
identification, it flies in the face of
numismatic evidence to the contrary:
"recall the Flavian coin depicting the
goddess on the seven hills. It is the
civitas magna quae habet regnum super
reges te"ae, the great city that rules
over the kings of the earth ... Rome"
(Stauffer, pg. 188-189). It is one thing
for ancient authors to call Jerusalem
"great" when specifically discoursing on
Jerusalem. But no one of Dr. Gentry's
ftrst-century AD. sources would have
failed to regard Rome as the self-under-
stood great city by way of eminence, as
even the coinage attests.
Perhaps we could go farther and point
out that correlating John's prophecy
with current events is a game that late-
date advocates can play as well as Dr.
Gentry. The history of Dornitian and
the progress of the emperor cult
through Asia in the last two decades of
the ftrst century bear witness to equally
plausible correlations, and they are even
more in number. The mortal wound on
the Beast that healed correlates figur-
atively with the 88-89 A.D. rebellion
against Dornitian (Stauffer, pg. 160).
(We note in passing that Rev. 13:3
properly refers to a slaying at the hands
of another, as in Rev. 5:6 - but Nero
committed suicide!) To John's false
prophet corresponds the Asiarch, high
priest of the Domitian cult in Ephesus,
who worked lying wonders with speak-
ing statues. Even the four horseman of
the Apocalypse correlate with the
rnits Dornitian was pretty well addicted
to being God. I believe Dr. Gentry has
not fully appreciated the overall focus
of the late-date theory, because the mere
existence of emperor worship prior to
Dornitian is a far cry from ftlling all
the qualitative details implicit in John's
prophecy, as regards scope and target
Domitian initiated the ftrst true
Christornachy, i.e., deliberate resistance
and opposition to the enthroned Christ
In questioning the actual existence of
a Domitianic persecution (pg. 169-
171), Dr. Gentry exhibits a style of
argument that infects much of his
sifting of historical data as to Revela-
tion's date of composition. The prob-
lem, as I see it. is how Dr. Gentry dis-
When Dr. Gentry affirms (pg. 39) that Nero
"is the only contemporary historical figure
that can possibly fulfill all of the requrre-
ments," he steps out on a limb.
Domitianic imperial celebration, which
included four horse teams of different
colors, but Stauffer ftnds here a divine
mocking of Domitian's pretension an-
swered by an apocalyptic death-race
(Stauffer, pg. 184-185).
Of immediate consequence is the
scope and considered target of the Nero-
man persecution versus the Dornitianic.
As to scope, the persecution was limit-
ed to Rome proper: only one city of a
vast empire (cf. Neander's General
Church History vol. 1 Pg. 130). The
considered target were the arsons who
set Rome ablaze. As Christians taught
the dissolution of all things by frre,
they became appropriate scapegoats.
Nero considered them a Jewish sect. the
utility of which soon became apparent.
Dr. Gentry gives but the briefest inci-
dental consideration to the narrow geo-
graphical scope of the Neronian persecu-
tion, and shores up the occasion of the
persecution in his sixth chapter, "The
Worship of the Beast" (pg. 57-67) by
attempting to demonstrate wide-spread
open collision between Christianity and
Roman paganism prior to Dornitian.
Dr. Gentry is able to minimize the
somewhat over-stated critique of the
early-date theory (pg. 168-169), but ad-
criminates between a good source and
an inferior one, as regards any material
piece of evidence. For example, we are
told that the "problem with the evi-
dence" for a Dornitianic persecution is
that it "proceeds solely from Christian
sources" (pg. 170). This is certainly no
compelling reason to reject the testi-
mony. The silence from pagan sources
is trustworthy, the Christian outcry
against savage persecution is unfounded
and specious? Gee, if only one of those
who had confirmed Domitian's persecu-
tion hadn't been filled with the Holy
Ghost, then the testimony would have
been trustworthy!
This partitioning of witnesses isn't
even-handed, either. Irenaeus merits an
index entry entitled "confusion/errors
in, 155-156." Epiphanius doesn't. Yet,
sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander. Dr. Gentry glosses over gaffes
in Epiphanius and gives him the beneftt
of the doubt, even reconstructing his
statements to conform with reality (pg.
145). Says he, "It is exttemely doubtful
that [Epiphanius] simply created his
"evidence" out of the blue." (ibid.). Yet
Salmon says "there is none who is
more apt than Epiphanius to make
blunders through carelessness, want of
The Counsel of Chalcedon October, 1989 page 27
critical discrimination, and, through a
habit of thought not unknOWn at the
present day, of what he g1iessed
might be true, as if he had ascertained it
to be tr:ue." (Introduction tO NT, pg.
168, note), Epiphanius claimed that
ltevelation was written during the reign
of Claudius; Dr. Gentry to be
"a rare designation of Nero" (pg 145).
Quite rare it is, as. no one else. ever
called Nero simply ''Claudius" without
oompounding it w!th Nero. The far
greater likelihood is that Epiphanius's
Claudian date is taken: from the
cryphal Acts of Leucius (Sahn.on, pg.
248 riote}. His historical-blunders are
legendary, as Lightfoot pointed out in
1876: "Epiphanius states that Aiito-
Iiinus Pius was succeeded by eatacalla.
who also bore the names of Geta and
M. Aurelius V en.s. and who reigned
seven years; that L. Ati.relius Com
modus likewise reigned these
seven yeari; that Pertinax succeeded
next, and was followed by Severiis ... "
Who can keep a straight face when
Epiphanius asserts that John was 90
ye!liS old in 54 A.D.?
If the same rules were applied to
Epiphariius that Dr. Gentry applies to
Irenaeus, I would be :satisfied with the
argument But the basis on which
Irenaeus iS discredited weighs with equil
or greater weight oil solli'Ces for Dr.
Gentry's position. -The criticisms are
double-edged, but Dr. Gentry directs the
blade selectively. Irenaeus. who testifies
to a Domitianic (9S-96 A.D.) composi
tion date for Revelation, is thus a cru
cial target for Dr. Gentty. But the favor
itism shown by Dr. Gentry is not in
the best tradition of careful -Christian
scholarship.
This tendency to uncritiCally accom-
modate positive testimony for the
date hypothesiS has even led Dr. Gentry
down a questionable path. He notes
with satisfaction that even liberal thee).
logians hold to ari early . date, even
though they traditionally tend to push
back the dates of Biblical books (pg.
83 ). The implication is that liberal
scholars are violating their norilial
principles of inquicy to admit that
Revelation is an early document, and
that this has considerable argumentative
weight. Nothing could be further from
the truth, however. There is a reason
Why . liberals . assign an early date tO
Revelation, and late dates to the other
boOks:. this strategem assures a uniform
discrediting of the biblical texts. The
rest of the New Testament books are
late dates to distance them
froni the oireputed". authors, making
them the product of ghost writers and
long after the alleged authors
have died. This serves to dismantle
infallibility and trustworthiness of the
New Testament text, its authorship, and
hence its authority.
Revelation's early date iS championed
by liberals and rationalists because this
serves to make St. John a false prophet.
Liberals regard Revelation 11 as teach-.
ing that the Herodian temple in
salem will not fall in . the comirig 'cbri'-
flict with Rome, .and that its prediction
that Nero would receive a mortal wound
must have been written after the sui-
cide, because liberals don't believe in
predictive prophecy; So was
written in the reign of Galba. and mis-
represents itself as predicting Nero's
death (which had already happened} and
holds the temple then standing to sur
vive the next 42 months of persecution,
. which of course it didn't. The liberals
choose the early date in order to trash
Revelation. Their names don't deserve
to be listed in Dr. Gentry's list of early-
date advocates (pgs. 83-84); for they
were guided by hostility to God's Word,
assigning Revelation to the 6770 A.D.
timeframe in order to discredit the be
loved disciple as a misguided Jewish zea
lot
- I am therefore surprised by Or. Gen-
try's statement that the Netonic dating
was the IOOte conservative option in the
late 1800's (pg. 87), insofar as all lib.
eial gravitated to the
Neronic date while avoiding the
bOmitianic date. Perhaps I misunder
stand what Dr. Genuy means by "con
servative," but the early date assuredly
did not predominate amOilg conservative
theologians: it was a minority view
point This does not discredit the earty
date (minority status does not bear on
. validity}, but it does serve notice that
Dr. Gentry's preseptations cannot be ac
cepted uncritically.
Before passing fully into extra-Bibli
cal discussions on Dr. Gentry's histOri
cal construction, we w6Wd dO well to
examine die remaining elements of br.
Gentry's Biblical_ evidence. We resume
here with the matter of the HerOOian
temple.
The Counset of Chalc8don OCtQber, 1989 page 28
Dr. Gentry regards the temple of
Rev. 11:1 as being the Herodian temple
of ancient Jerusalem. It is the literal
tempte as fll'St-centliry. readers (at least
those living before 70 A.D.) would
understand it -- how Christians would
have Understood the passage if SL John
ptophesied in 95 A.D. is ' not . con
sidered. I have three distinct objections
to this viewpoint. First, Dr. Gentry
insists that the "temple is required tO be
standing for the symbolical action of
the vision to have arty meaning."- Yet,
no temple stood when Erekiel penned
his fmal vision (Ezek. 40-48); is itS
meaning compromised? Dr. Gentry
makes back reference to 8, no
dOubt, but the assumption of literality
begs the question. ' .
Secondly, Dr. Gentiy lays excessive
sti:ess on the enormity of this particular
event (i.e. destruction of the temple &
Jerusalem). Surely something as unpre-
cedented as this deserves considerable
attention in the Word. But if the pte
cedent of Scripfure be observed, we are
forced to consider the Babylonian Cap-
tivity and destruction of Solomon's
temple as the only known divine pat-
tern. Balancing his acctJUnt with materi
al of this nature will strengthen Dr.
Gentry's position, for it would provide
justification for one's chosen
tive if handled rightly. Even so, -Jesus
gave sufficient ground for regarding
Jerusalem and its Temple as a mere dead
carcass (Matthew 23 & 24). Preterism's
key event is the coming of the vultures
to the carcass. We are told that the irri-
portance of Jerusalem's fall camiot be
overemPhasized, but I believe it has
been overemphasized, especially in
light of Matt 26:64: "Nevertheless I
say untO you, from this time forth- ye
shall see the Son of man sitting at the
right hand of powet and coming on the
clouds of heaven." The events henf"lil
luded to weren't pbstponed four decades:
.they began "ap afti," inunediately, with
His crucifiXion, resurrection and glorifi-
cation.
Third, and most damaging, is the fact
that a1though the demand for literality
on Rev. 11:1 reverberates throughout
Dr. Gentty's book, this demand is im-
. mediateiy relaxed at verse-2 and
Dr. Gentry agrees that the measurement
of the temple refers to its preservation.
Since the literal temple was not pre-
served, but rather destroyed as I eslis
dieted, Dr. Gentry is forced to recant his
strong suit almost immediately after
introducing it, making the temple pro-
per refer to the body of Christians, and
the outer court to the actual literal
temple. These are major ad hoc assump-
tions, and indicate that in fact applica-
tion of literality to Rev. 11:1 is unwar-
ranted as well, as the measuring reed
appears first, then the command to
measure (preserve) the temple of God.
etc. If temple of God in verse l means
Herodian temple, Revelation is a false
prophecy. Dr. Gentry's solution to this
difficult dilenuna does not satisfy the
requirements of the problem. The struc-
ture of verse 1 prevents him from hav-
ing his cake and eating it too. The ac-
tion assigned to the temple of God is:
measure it. The Herodian temple is thus
measured-preserved- yet destroyed.
The liberals just love this dilemma.
Is there a solution provided in the
text? Possibly, if by the altar of Rev.
11:1 is meant the altar of sacrifice, and
not the golden altar of incense (the
latter being Oilton's preference). If the
former were true, then John would be
forcing us to admit the probability of
Gentry's exposition, as Gebhardt noted,
because the altar of sacrifice would have
been located outside the measured por-
tion of the temple. Such collisions, as
Fairbairn noted, are signposts demand-
ing non-literal interpretation (not unlike
the incompatible "rnillennial" land divi-
sions in Israel as given by Obadiah and
Ezekiel, a nightmare no premillen-
nialist has ever untangled).
I believe that Dr. Gentry's discussion
of Rev. 11:2 notwithstanding (pg.
120), he probably missed the correct
parallel text for "casting out the outer
court: Galatians 4:30, where ekbale exo
also appears in connection with the
casting out of the bondwoman and her
son. Dr. Gentry may do well to accom-
modate such considerations (if they
prove out legitimate) if and when he
executes a revision of the presently con-
sidered volume. In any event, identi-
fying Rev. ll's temple with Herod's is
a high-risk undertaking. In Days uf
Vengeance, David Chilton breaks away
from the rank and file preterists by
taking the sustained argument in
Hebrews seriously, and not insisting on
the traditional preterist interpretation of
Rev. 11:1. Otilton showed that such an
approach is not inconsistent with ortho-
dox preterism. In my view, preterism is
strengthened thereby - Dr. Gentry
should carefully reexamine Chilton's
analysis again.
In Chapter 10, Dr. Gentry notifies us
that "in this chapter I will be con-
sidering what I believe to be the leading
objective evidence for Revelation's date
of composition. That evidence is con-
tained in the statement regarding the
"seven kings" in Revelation 17." (pg.
102). Firstly, it should be noted that
Dr. Gentry does not discuss the ten
horns (nor the two witnesses, nor the
millennium for that matter). It has been
held (rightly, in my opinion) that the
ten horns are on the seventh head of the
beast, primarily because the horns share
a characteristic with the 7th head (not
by Dr. Gentry can be dispensed with:
Rev. 11:2 can naturally acconunodate a
non-literal temple and non-literal Jeru-
salem referencing true devotion versus
hypocritical religious observance. Keep
in mind that these points do not prove
Dr. Gentry to be wrong; they simply
reduce the measure of certainty behind
his assertions by offering possible
Biblical alternatives to his thesis.
Dr. Gentry's proposed parallelism
between Luke 21:24 and Rev. 11:2 (pg.
114-116) supports the Jewish War hy-
pothesis, as I surely agree with him
that Luke 21:24 speaks of the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem: "and Jerusalem will
be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles
until the times of the Gentiles be
fulfilled." Compare Rev. 11:2, which
Yet, it is understandable for David Chilton
to observe that, given a non-preterist's
interpretation of "quickly," he wouldn't
send one out for hot sandwiches.
yet having been given power) that
wouldn't be true if they were located on
heads 1 through 6. As horns are tradi-
tionally located on heads (not imbedded
in the body, the curious suggestion of
some commentators), this detail of the
seventh head strikes me as important.
Its omission by Dr. Gentry clears the
path for the identification of Galba as
the seventh head. We would do well to
ask, when the seventh head dies, does
the beast with seven dead heads die? Its
power to command, to bite and tear to
pieces, is gone. This doesn't mark post-
Galba Rome very well: it was post-
Galba Rome that demolished Jerusalem.
Dr. Gentry further argues that literal
Jerusalem is in view because the text
demands something that "could be trod-
den down in war" (pg. 112). I suggest
in response that the treading of the
outer court by the Gentiles correlates
with phraseology used at Isaiah 1:12
("who hath required this at your hand to
tread My courts?"), a reference even
acknowledged by preterist David Chil-
ton. Alexander takes this to mean "not
merely to frequent them, but to trample
on them, as a gesture of contempt" (see
his Commentary at Isa. 1:12). Under-
stood as such, the war image imposed
reads "it has been given to the nations;
and they will tread under foot the holy
city for forty-two months." The
conclusion must necessarily follow that
the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled
in 42 months. We have here then a
probable correlation, as Dr. Gentry docu-
ments. I believe this line of argument
to be his strongest, and it is striking
that it occurs in a subsection entitled
"Scripture Interprets Scripture." The
only caveat to remember is that speci-
fied by Dr. Morecraft, that not all ap-
parent parallel passages are truly paral-
lel. As virtually all postrnillennialists
preterise the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24
and parallels), a truly legitimate link
from Olivet into Revelation through
Scripture would be sufficient to estab-
lish a preterist interpretation of Revela-
tion. It will take a lot more than David
Chilton's clever tum of phrase that the
Little Apocalypse of Matt. 24 covers
the same subject as the Big Apocalypse
of Revelation, however. If this particu-
lar parallel can be established beyond
doubt in a future revision of his book,
Dr. Gentry will have won his case
hands down. Such a correlation would
appear insurmountable if it can be put
on utterly solid footing without room
The Counsel.of Chalcedon October, 1989 page 29
fat equivocation.
Even so,. the jOb -doesn't get" any
easier, becatise the idea that Rev. 11
predicts the destruction of Herodian
temple is hard to squeeze out of the.
text A successful corn!latiori of Luke
and Revelation will vindicate preterism,
bur will also demand lotS of late-night
homework to harmonize the details
properly, But I would be with
the required corielation, if one can be
established, especially if it can counter-
act the force of the aorist edothae in
Rev. 11:2, whlGh would most naturally
mean . that the cast-out portion had (Jl"'
ready been given over to the Gentiles,
i.e., that the verse is . referring to an
already-destroyed Temple, not a
standing' Temple; As the ;exegesis of
this one verb bears on the book's date
(!),it will no doubt receive attention in
Dr. Gentry's subsequent research.
. Finally, we come to the ancierit his-
torical evidence for and against the
date theory. The useDr. Gentry makes
of the Muratorian Canon (pg. 143) is
ill-considered, and it is clear that' he is
aware of this fact, for he has evidently
examined warfield's discussion ofReve-
lation's date (pg. 149 note), and would
therefore have been exp<)sed to the pro-
position that the Muratoria.11 Canon has
been grossly misunderstood. Credner
points out that the term "predecessor"
simply means that John was an apostle
before Paul (cf. Gal. 1:17), and not that
John wrote Revelation before Paul
cQ,mpleted his epistles to seven different
churches. It should be pointed out that
even if Dr. Gentry undersianQs the
Muratorian Canon correctly (whiCh I
doubt), he runs into a chronological
prpblem if Paul's death is placed too
near Revelation's composition, as op-
portunity must exist for Paul to 'match
John one for one, and to send out any
fmal canonical church (versus pastoral)
epistles before meeting Caesar's wt-
sheathed sword. If preterismJs. tile. cor-
rect system of intet:pretation, I would
welcome a rethinking ofPaulinechrono-
logy, as such would only enhance its
accuracy. But if preterism is only plaus-
ible, there is no imperative need to over-
turn the existing chronologies.
Omission of alternate hypotheses ;md
selective use of evidence prevail . in the
remainder of Dr. Gentry's discussion of
Historical Evidence. .For example,
while the superscriptions on the Syriac
Apocalypses identify Jolm's exile as
being under Nero Caesar (and it is
almost certain they mean exactly that),
even here an alternate hypothesis casts
its shadow across the proceedings, as
J uvenal (28) and Ausoriius (29) De xii .
Caesiribus Tertullina, No. (22) provide
evidence thatDomitian wa8 calledNero.
This could theoretically account for the
Syriac superscription, although this is
far from certain. Even granting the
Syriac versions to mean what they say,
they could easily be . in error, so we
have an added layer of uncertainty to
consider.
Dr. Gentry's use of Papias is also:
subject to scrutiny. Preterist AugustuS'
NeandersaidofPa{)ias "of a
very. narrow. mind and easy credulity"
(General Church . History, val. ii, pg.
429,. and that "he received a great deal
that was misconceived and untrue."
When scholars from one's own camp
give warning, it tends to decrease the
relative weight of the testiniony. Of
course, Papias may be right .. assuming
that the 7th and 9th century manu-
scripts have accurately transmitted his
wording down to us. But we find no
certainty in this particular harbor, as
even Dr. Gentry implies in his cautious
provisional use ofPapias as awitness.
Aside from the general unreliability
of Epiphanius's testimony documented
in this an additional piQb-
lem crops up with Dr. Gentry's utiliza-
ti<m of Epiphanius. Even assuming
Epiphanius intends Nero when he
writes Claudius Ca.esar, it so l:lappens
that he not orily assigns John's exile fO
the reign of this emperor, but also
Jahn's retu,rn! Not orily did Nero not
kill John, as was his custoltl; but he
also released him . from exile on Pat-
mas! The Beast is a nice guy after all,
assuming. Dr. Gentry has. Epiphanius
out properly. Let's see; Paul anci
Peter butchered, thousands of Christians
roasted on stakes, but John. is . set at
Uberty. I can't help wondering ifEpipha:
nius hasn't fouled up )lere again. It is.
Jloteworthy in considering Epiphanius'
reliability that an elltire cult, the Alogi;
were thought to OJtCe exist, based on
his testill_lOny. In actual fact, the, "cult"
but one member, by name.
Epiphanius the name "Alogi .. "
. Fmally, we coQle to Irenael.lS . . Dt:.
Gentry believes that Irenaeus was either
wrong, . or is being wrongly interpreted,
TheCounsel .of Chalcedon Octobel',1989
when he wrote that the Apocalypse was
written toward the end of the 1st
tury A.D. I've examined the evidence in
favor of Dr. Gentry's notion that it was
riot Revelation that was seen circa 95
AD., but rather St. John hitriself. Are
there grounds for such a reinterpretation
of lrenaeus? .Indeed there are, as H.B;
Swete reports (Revelation, pg. cvi) in
discussing Hart's lectures on the AJXX;ll:"' '
lypse. There are at least two philologi.,.
cal considerations that materially affect
the proper understanding of the henaean
testimony, one the use of a
preposition, the other with the standard
use of the veJ:b . horao in comtection
with persons in the writings of
Irenaeus. While Hort failed ta: eXploit
these anomalies, they deserve attention.
Gentry raises. both of these points, and
several others (pg ... 152ff), indicating
that his unabridged dissertation supplies
further information yet, Dr. Gentry dOes
not specifically . mention the Irenaean
pattern surrounding his use of the verb
horao, indicating rather that Irenaeus
was an erratic writer (pg. 153). I believe
this tact undermines . a potentially
strong argument, for if Irenaeus showed
consistency, we could argue from that
foundation that the .. key testimony haS
been misunderstood. Dr. Gentry's argu ..
ment is good, but unnecessarily weak-
ens itself at its strongest point. ,
We conclude this lengthy review
cle by touching on the most sensitive
topic of all: what does Jesus mean
when He says "Behold, I come quick-
ly''? I agree with Dr. Gentry (and David
Chilton) that futurism cannot harmon-
izeits teachings with this divine declara-
tion of the risen Christ Are inter-ad-
vent inteqxetations under suspicion of
"weaseling," also? That is a matter of
interpretation: non-preterist
nialism regards the throne vision of
Dan. 7 , and the little season of Rev. 20
as simultaneous: the ftte from heaven
depicted at Dan. 7:10 and Rev. 20:9 be.:;,
ing continuously poured out on the
earth century after century. Yet, it is
understandable for David Chilton to ob-
serve that, given a non-preterist's inter-
pretation of "quickly," he wouldn' t send
one out for hot sandwiches.
Dli. Gentry's discussion (pg. 22-24)
supplies the necessary philological
basis for the preterist interpretation of
the various tenns . used by John. He
(Continued on page 32)
The Beast of Revelation ,
Continued from page 30
establishes, to my satisfaction,_ that
terism supplies the most naturlil basis
for understanding John's language. The:
problem this represents for futurists is,
immense, while inter-adventists can
half-way squirm into cortformicy with
the text There are a Class of scriptural
representations that forcefully. imply
inunediate contemporary activity, a$'
Dr" Gentry ably documents. Preterism
does justice to these texts.
No book of the Bible has convinced
Bible students that they see through a
glass darkly more than the book of
Revelation. As regards its interpreta ...
tion, it's much easier to tear down what
others have built up, than to build a
exposition oneself. Gentry's
position is internally consistent and
plausible. It could be correct, and it
would be presumptuous to categorically
deny this possibility. The question
addressed by Dr. Gentry's book is an im-
portant one, a question that will deter-
mine how twenty-two entire chapters of
the Bible are to be understood. On this
sobering point, as regards the inter-
pretiltionill dispute over Revelation, the
words ofDr. Warfield may with justice
be profitably adapted: "It is inevitable
that the controversy should continue to
rage until it is fought to a fmish. The
question at issue between the parties to
it is the fundarnentill question [of the
meaning of Revelation]; and it is well
that it should not be illlowed to pass
out of public Sight so long. as there is a
single thing which is even . plausible
remaining to be said upon either side,"
By this standard of stewardship over our
theologicill heritage and its future, it is
clear that Dr. Gentry's The Beast of
Revelation, and the unabridged disserta-'
tion from which it was condensed, are:
vitillly important contributions .to the
Church's repository of sanctified scholar-
ship and painstaking research. One may
disagree with certain specific's of Gen-
try's s9lution; but hiS careful anillysis
deserves respect. His perspective is bur-
dened by no more severe problems; than
its rivals, and may arguably beJess
cumbered: it may be Gentry whO
has the mote in his eye, and his critics
(this reviewf;r included) the ones sport-
iQg excess opticill lumber. I think Dr; '
North is right in cases like this: it
1;.
Non-Profit Org.
U.S, Postage
PAID
BULK RATE
.Permit No. 1553
Greenville, SC
29602 .
, If the expiration code next to your name is. 821!! (Oct, 1989)
. or lower, or if there is no code indicated after your name, we would greatly:
aPpreciate a 'check from you in the amount of $25.00 to help cover the . . '.
expense 9{your subscription to The Counsel foi the coming year. . ..
As we approach the last quarter of the year, we very much need your financiill'
support, both in tenns of increased subscription payments and by. means of
the Cotincll of 451; wherein members contribute at least $100.00'annually ,
to this ministry. It is our prayer that the Sovereign God, for whose KingdOn:t
we Iabat, will lead you, his people, to help meet the urgent needs of this work.
Please send !our clieq todav. to:
ot
3032 Hacienda ..
Marietta, GA 30066
would take ail.entire book to answer Dr.
Gentry's argument effectively. Theques ..
tions raised in this review will only en-
gender more "iron sharpening iron." .
it is a testimony to Dr; Gentry's
Christian character that he asked
sel of Chillcedon editor David GoOdrum
to find a hostile to
his to review The Beast of
tjr. Gentry believed that
w:ou1d serve Christ's
causebetter than pages
accQlades. I humbled ,by his ex-
ample. ; n
MOVING?
When you move . be sure to
send us your 9ld and your .
new address.
It's the only way to make
sure you receive The Counsel
at your new home.
It's the only way to make
sure you don't miss a
single issue.
The Counsel
of Chalcedon
3032 Hacienda Ct.
Marietta, GA 30066
The Counsel of Chalcedon Oct9b.er, t9B9 : page 32: