BOOK REVIEW

Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the

Book of Revelation (An Exegetical and
Historical Argument for a Pre-AD. 70
Composition), by KennethL. Gentry, Jr.,
Th.D. The Institute for Christian Eco-
nomics, Tyler, Texas, 1989. 409 pages,
hardback. $24.95. Reviewed by the Rev.
Grover E. Gunn, ill, pastor, the Carroll-
ton Presbyterian Church (PCA), Carroll-
ton, Mississippi.
Myfirstrealexposure to a preter-
ite interpretation of the book of
Revelation was during the 1977-78
academic year. (This is the view
that the prophecies found in the
Book of Revelation have taken
place, largely, in the past. In other
words they have already taken place
and are not, primarily, speaking of
events which are still in the future.)
I then attended a series of lectures
by Dr. Greg Bahnsen at the St. Paul
Presbyterian Church in Jackson,
Mississippi. That extended series,
which is still available through the
Mt. Olive Tape Library, made me a
convert. The difficulty I have had
over the years since has been find-
ing quality published material de-
fending and explaining this posi-
tion. I found J. Marcellus Kik's
exegesis ofMatthew 24 most help-
ful. TherewasB.B. Warfield's short
I
Jerusalem temple (A.D. 67-70); and 3)
the Roman Civil War of A.D. 68-69,
during which the Empire seemed to be in
its death throes. Dr. Gentry reminds us of
how tragic, cataclysmic and even un-
thinkable these events were in their day.
The basic point at issue is whether the
Book of Revelation was written during
the Neronim persecution and before the
piece on Paul's eschatology which pro- other two events or after all three of these
motes a preterite interpretation of the events and during the Domitian persecu-
"man of sin" passage in ii Thessalonians tion. The difference between the compo-
2. And there was Jay Adams' small pre- sition dates advocated by the early and
terite commentary on Revelation. Back late date positions is only about thirty
when I was first wrestling with these years, and that does not seem all that
issues, that was about all there was avail- significant a time difference in ancient
able in print by respected Reformed writ- history. And it would not be were it not
ers. Thankfully, the situation is improv- for the cataclysmic nature of the events
ing. Andamajorpositivedevelopmentis which occurred during that thirty year
thepublicationofKen Gentry's newwork, period and their relevance to the message
BeforeJerusalemFell:DatingtheBook ofRevelation. IfRevelation was written
ofRevelation. before these events, then much of the
Dr. Gentry points out three earth shak- apocalyptic imagery can be interpreted in.
ing events in the latter days of the apos- terms of these truly cataclysmic events
tolic church: 1) theN etonian persecution, which occurred soon after the book was
the first direct assault upon Christianity written. This would allow for a simple
by a Roman Caesar (A.D. 64-68); 2) the andliteralfulfillmentofRevelation'skey
Jewish revolt and the destruction of the statements about the imminent fulfill-
The Counsel of Chalcedon March, 1990 page 22
ment of its prophecies. If the book was
written after these cataclysmic events,
then, except for the Domitian persecu-
tion, there were no imminent events Which
soon fulfilled much of the book's proph-
ecy. One is then forced to interpret the
book largely in terms of non-historical
principles (the axiomatic interpretation)
or in terms of much later historical events
(the historical and the fUturistic interpre-
tations ). Thus this book's dating dramati-
cally affects its interpretation.
Dr. Gentry challenges contemporary
students of prophecy to take off their
blinders and to consider with an open
mind the evidence for a preterite
interpretation of Revelation tied to
an early composition date. Dr. Gen-
tryremindsus thatjustafewgenera-
tions ago, theearlydateviewwas the
reigning opinion. He gives us an
impressive list of scholars, both past
and present, who have advocated
this position. If so many luminaries
have championed this view, surely
the evidence is worth considering .,It
is time for all students of prophecy to
wake up and smell the coffee. The
days arepastwhenastudentofproph-
ecy coilld safely ignore the evidence
for all interpretive systems other then
his own, totally dismissing all such
evidence as not even worth examin-
ing, much less considering.
In examining the dating question,
Dr. Gentry deals with both externid
lq'ld internal evidence. He remincJs
us that this terminology can be de-
ceptive. It gives the impression that
we are here dealing . with. two equally
weighty witnesses. Thatis not the case at
all. When we say external evidence, what
we are really talking about is church tra-
dition. ADd internal evidence is just an-
other name for the self-witness of
Scripture. Sola Scriptura was the Protes-
tant response to the Roman teaching that
Scripture and traditiqn were equally au-
thoritative of divine revela-
tion. External evidence and internal evi-
dence are certainly both important wit-
nesses, but if we ever. have to choose
between them, the proper choice is clear.
When Dr. Gentry examines the exter-
nal evidence for the late date, he convinc-
ingly demonstrates that this is one of
those cases where so much has peen built
on so little. One gets the . picture of a
pyramid turned on its head. The founda-
tion of this inverted pyramid is one state-
ment by Irenaeus, the church father known
primarily for his polemic against gnosti-
cism. Dr. Gentry gives us multiple rea-
sons to take Irenaeus' one statement with
a grain of salt. Jrenaeus was, in general,
_; not the clearest of writers, and the mean-
ing of this one statement is ambiguous. It
is commonly translated to mean that the
Apocalyptic vision was seen during
Domitian' s reign. But the statement could
also just as validly be translated to mean
that the Apostle John, the one who saw
the vision, was seen during Domitian's
reign. Thus translated, the statement has
no relevance to the late date argument.
Even if one accepts the translation sup-
portive of the late date position, there is
still the larger issue of Irenaeus' prone-
ness to historical error. His most glaring
error is his statement implying that Jesus
lived to be almost fifty after a fifteen year
or longer earthly ministry. As Dr. Gentry
notes, "A bold 'thus saith Irenaeus,' can-
not be conclusive of the matter."
Dr. Gentry goes on to examine other,
less well-known external evidence, but
his most interesting work is his study of
internal evidence. I fmd this case most
compelling. He combines the exegesis of
substantive texts from the Apocalypse
with documented data concerning Nero,
his persecution of the church, the Jewish
war, the Roman destructionoftheJerusa-
lem temple, and the civil turmoil in Rome
following Nero's death. Dr. Gentry
demonstrates that these historical events
fit the Apocalyptic message like a glove.
This section of Dr. Gentry's book con-
tains much valuable material. The chap-
ter titles alone are enough to whet the
exegete's appetite:
The Theme of Revelation;
The Temporal Expectations of the
Author;
The Identity of the Sixth King;
The Contemporary Integrity of the
Temple;
The Role of Nero Caesar;
The Role of Jewish Christianity;
The Looming Jewish War.
To clinch his case, Dr. Gentry also
examines the historical data from the time
of Domitian and critiques the efforts to
interpret the imagery of Revelation in
terms of these later events. Again, the
chapter titles summarize well the ground
covered:
The Role of Emperor Worship;
The Persecution of Christianity;
The Nero Redivivus Myth;
The Condition of the Seven Churches.
In this book, Dr. Gentry has given us
insightful and well-documented studies
of early church history which provide
illuminating background for the book of
Revelation. There is just no comparison
between this and the highly speculative
"newspaper exegesis" we are all too fa-
miliar with. The difference is like that be-
tween wheat and chaff.
I believe an increasing number of Chris-
tians are going to grow dissatisfied with
chaff and begin looking for exegetical
bread that satisfies. Christians continue
to wait for the bodily return of Christ, an
event so many expected with such dog-
matic confidence to occur at least before
the end of the '80's. Of course, He will
return bodily to earth, but not even He
knows the time. The church is increas-
ingly waking up to its responsibility to
"polish the brass" and to plan for the long
haul. The world political situation contin-
ues to change and thus to deviate from
that state of affairs which was proclaimed
so dogmatically to be the political stage
for the end time drama. The "terminal
generation" mentality is indeed terminat-
ing because it has no biblical roots to
sustain it. I believe more and more Chris-
tians are going to rethink their views on
prophecy in the coming days. I hope
many of them will read Dr. Gentry's book
as a part of that effort.
I do have one dissatisfaction to air. I
noticed in a footnote that Dr. Gentry is
planning on also publishing a full com-
mentary on the book of Revelation. I am
not going to be satisfied until I also have
that study in my library. I greatly respect
Dr. Gentry' s ability as a non-speculative
grammitico-historical exegete. He deals
honestly with the words and statements
which God inspired the Apostle John to
write and with the historical evidence
which beirrs on this subject. n
The Counsel of Chalcedon March, 1990 page 23