Customer Reviews

Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation

5 star:		(31)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I wouldn't dare be as eager as the previous reviewer, who labels the common eschatological view as "heresy." But what his actions demonstrate is the surprise that comes with learning that a great deal of censorship exists within the church, particularly between the Dispensationalists and the Reformed camps. I, too, was excitedly challenged by Gentry's book, a book that opened the door to an eschatology that is far more historic than the Dispensational dogma I was raised in and believed. Gee, there once was a time when I thought the only debate in eschatology was pretrib versus posttrib. Was I ever naive! Unfortunately, that naivety was ingrained into me, unawares, by teachers who censored all other views out of existence. Even in the old (correction, recent) pretrib versus posttrib battles, many churches draw hard lines of dogmatism. For example, the Calvary Chapel churches will not allow a premillenial posttrib Christian to become a pastor of a CC church, even though they really only disagree about the timing of an instantaneous event by a mere 7 years on the grand scale of eternity. It is the release from this kind of dogmatism that is so refreshing to me, and to the previous reviewer. So, a word of caution...don't go to the other extreme! Don't treat the popular school with the same dogmatism they held you in.

Gentry enlightens the reader with significant evidence that the book of Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, rather than sometime in the 90's. His argument is not an attempt to twist facts to justify a silly and uncommon personal doctrinal preference, but rather it is an argument that has been historically held by many greats, down through the centuries. It is this evidence that first convinced Gentry. It is this evidence that has been summarily dismissed by dispensational groups, and hence never made known to the masses of followers. Gentry uses internal and external evidences about Revelation to present a strong case for pre-70 AD authorship. He deals with the 90 AD evidences, and finds them to be inconclusive, strained, and for the most part, weak. This includes the pivotal statement by Irenaeus (spelling?), and whether or not Irenaeus should be taken conclusively one way or another anyway. Ancient Christian literature is also surveyed, and the results are quite interesting. The reader must bear in mind that Gentry cannot prove his case either, but only show supporting evidence for it; evidence which is strong. But Gentry is honest in that he engages the arguments against his position. If only dispensationalism would expose its members to the pre-70 AD arguments!! (I do not intend to slam the dispies, for there are many fine Christians and churches of that persuasion! But if the truth be told, had I not opened my mind enough to look beyond the four walls of the old dispy box I was placed in, I would never have known the wonderful richness of various eschatological interpretation. This is not to say that many of Gentry's persuasion do not censor, but since the view is a minority today, they are usually forced to address the major views.)

Gentry then takes the next logical step: if the book of Revelation was written before Jerusalem fell, and since the book warns of imminent dangers ("things which must shortly take place," "the time is near," "the beast...is about to come up out of the abyss," the judgment of the temple in chapter 11:1-2, etc...), then maybe the book is a warning about the impending Fall of Jerusalem! Gentry surveys that possibility, and the case is quite intriguing. Certainly, for ears unaccustomed to such an idea, it seems ludicrous and easy to dismiss without examination. That is naturally understandable. But please don't do yourself such an injustice! The newness and oddity will wear off as you read and ponder the information. If Gentry doesn't convince you to change your mind, fine. At least you have broken through the barrier of eschatological censorship. Just try not to jump out of one box and into another.

Without a doubt, Dr. Kenneth Gentry's book, "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation", is one of the most enlighting readings I have ever come upon. Intrigued by his review of R.C. Sproul's work, "The Last Days According to Jesus", I sought out BJF and read it with an open mind that had already dumped any pre-tribulation view after the Y2K "mess" and had starting thinking more about the nature of the Olivet Discourse. What I read astounded me.

Dr. Gentry not only presents and defends his side with hard exegetical evidence, but also takes the time to present other views and then explains, using this same method, why they are not true. Digging through the pages of history of the early church fathers, citing excellent commentaries from the late 19th and early 20th century, and taking Scripture with the seriousness that any scholar should, Gentry gives overwhelming evidence that Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70 and also gives us answers into some of the mysteries such as

Who is the Beast?
What is 666?
Is the tribulation past or still to come?

as well as demonstrating that the majority of Revelation, all of the Olivet Discourse and the 70 weeks passage in Daniel was fulfilled in the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. Dr. Gentry shows that, as should always be the case, that prophecy is easier to understand after it has been fulfilled than before. If you are into any view that calls for a tribulation of any kind, should you decide to read this book, you will definitely be affected and challenge to make a change of such a view.

With the unprecedented popularity of the "Left Behind" series, Tim LaHaye has re-energized the stumbling giant of dispensational premillenial eschatology. Christians who were disillusioned by the non-occurrence of the rapture in 1988, 1994, January 2000, and so on, have rallied around the latest attempt to reinvigorate their patently bogus interpretation of Revelation. If it could be shown that the book of Revelation was written prior to the fall of Jerusalem in AD70, it would cause serious problems to the futurist interpretation held by LaHaye. LaHaye's view of Revelation rests on his assumption that the book was written around AD93-96, and thus it can't be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem. But if it WAS written in AD69, and it IS a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, then LaHaye is left behind in his understanding of prophecy. Enter Ken Gentry. "Before Jerusalem Fell" is an outstanding presentation for the pre-AD70 dating of the book of Revelation. Gentry takes great pains to make his case from all available sources: extrabiblical documents, as well as Scripture itself. Profusely footnoted, exhaustively researched, and clearly written, BJF is a book that demands attention from all serious students of eschatology. Read it, and you may never want to touch another "Left Behind" novel again.

All evangelicals KNOW that there will be a pretrib rapture, KNOW that drinking alcohol is a sin, and KNOW that Revelation was written AD 95-96. These are sacred cows of American Evangelicalism.
Gentry offers us up a tasty serving of beef from one of these sacred cows.
Gentry deals with internal and external evidence. The internal evidence is effectively argued, and is most persuasive.
The external evidence is shown to be very much inconclusive, contrary to so much late-date rhetoric. Most importantly, concerning the external evidence, Dr. Gentry deals extensively with Ireneus and his famous statement, which statement is supposed by many to settle the date question once and for all.
Anyone who seeks to understand the book of Revelation MUST deal with Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell.
All Christians should be very careful dating the book of Revelation, for so much of its meaning is either made clear or lost depending on its date of composition.

Date carefully!

Yes, this is a well researched and written book. I am no scholar in this field, but I was able to get through it and understand it because I was already familiar with many of the arguments presented in this book.

The facts and arguments presented were displayed well in the book and just about every interpretation, which was reasonable, was given and examined quite well. This book, I found, lacked bias. The author clearly endorses the pre-70A.D. authorship of Revelation; yet, he doesn't agree with every point which may strengthen his position. He also examines, fairly without bias, points which make it hard to believe the pre-70A.D. dating. Despite the balanced hand in this book, everything seems to stand in favor on some degree at the very least with a pre-70A.D. date for Revelation.

I am one who is surrounded by Spirit Filled Christians from both camps (the 70A.D. and 95A.D. supporters). I personally never placed much weight on the argument over Revelation before, but I have so recently realized the nessecity to stand on one side or the other. I find that this book has been a excellent help in placing me on firmer ground toward the pre-70A.D. date. It has been an excellent tool, and will continue to be a such, in my studies on Revelation. I would recommend this to anyone who is and isn't sure on their stance. This book, I feel, should be read at least once by all Christians who've ever asked a question about the book of Revelation. This book doesn't have every last answer to every question ever asked on this subject, but it makes a great case for the pre-70A.D. date.

I'm also looking for equally well presented works which refute Gentry's work in this book. So, far I've found none. The author of this book is at least one of the bigger names in Preterist camp, so I would think someone would have compiled a work to stand against it. So far I've found no work comparable to this one in the other camp. This book has been in circulation since '89. It is quite impressive that I've only been able to find a few comments to stand against this work, and they were unconvincing statements at best. I've found nothing formal and nothing even near the level of this work to support the more popular view of Dispensationalism. Given the opportunity of time and availability of this book, I'm lead to believe that this is so well put together that any opposition to this work comes with nothing as sure as the work displayed in this book.

WOW,what a book!Put to rest the dating issue of Revelation.This is absolutely the best and most informative and thorough treatise I have come across to date.Incredible!Mr.Gentry used a wealth of resources for his research on this one.From cover to cover this work keeps you engrossed like a fine novel.With my current work and research on the book of Revelation finally coming together,this book will be close by my side when I begin to do studies,and even more so when I begin to scribe my own work.Mr.Gentry's book will surely open ones eyes if they are a believer in the latter dating of the book of Revelation.Even if you could care less about the date there is a good history lesson to be gotten here.Give this book a shot and I am sure you will be glad you did.Go with God!

Gentry wrote this book in 1989. Nobody has been able to show that his conclusion regarding the dating of Revelation is faulty. In fact, to my knowledge, nobody has even tried. The only responses I've seen have relied on the very argument that Gentry defeats--the testimony of Irenaeus.

This book and The Beast of Revelation join Paradise Retored and The Days of Vengeance as a bulwark that has yet to be breached by the Dispensationalists who are clamoring to find signs of the times.

Dr. Gentry has written a convincing book speaking about the pre-70 AD date for the book of Revelation. I have been convinced for some time that the whole of the NT was written prior to 70 AD due to the fact, which I read in another text that I cannot remember the title and author, that none of the authors of the various books of the NT mention the fall of Jerusalem and the temple. The fall of Jerusalem and especially the temple would have been such a significant event that it would have made it into the writting of the NT if indeed they were written post-70 AD.
I would also advise that you wade in and read through Josephus: The Jewish Wars, which helps to show the "fulfilled" prophecy of the book of Revelation. Josephus is writting either during the the time of the Judeo-Roman war or post war, but it shows how Josephus, a man who did not have a copy of Revelation, is able to show the fulfillment of the book of Revelation, since it deals with the events that occurred between 63-70 AD (roughly).

Granted, although the bulk of Revelation deals with fulfilled prophecy there is a portion at the end which deals with the second coming of Christ since it speaks about the Resurrection.
The author, John, makes it clear that he is speaking about a future event when he mentions the 1000 period of time (I am amillenialist which means that I believe that we are in this time frame and that the 1000 years does not relate to a "literal" 1000 years).

This book is a breath of fresh air in an era of "Left Behind" nonsense. This book sets the church free from doing "newspaper exegesis" and getting about the real ministry of the gospel and not wasting precious printing resources on mounds and mounds of books on premillenialism.

Dr. Gentry does what no other has attempted to do: a thorough, historical, and (shock) exegetical analysis of the dating of the book of Revelation. The date of Revelation is key to its interpretation (from anybody's perspective). Gentry shows us, beyond any doubt, that indeed Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, and he does so with precision and clarity that is greatly lacking in academic theology (especially in the dispensational community). I recommend this to anybody who is a serious Christian or serious Scholar with regard to the dating of Revelation.

In short, this is an exhaustive, and I do mean exhaustive, presentation of the argument for an early date in regards to the writing of Revelation. It's an extremely labor intensive read that consistently put me to sleep even though I'm quite interested in this subject. It's written in a style that seeks to impress professors with how many nine sylable words can be used on one sentence, and it does that for four hundred pages. And let's not overlook the footnotes, as there are (I believe) more footnotes than text in this book - so much so that it becomes quite a distraction and an annoyance. It seems there are ten lines of footnotes for every three lines of text.

I am convinced of the earlier date theory for Revelation and this book does nail that theory down pretty well, however, it does so in a painfully dull fashion. If you're trying to convince someone that the preterist view could in fact be correct, they might not make it through this book before they lose interest.

This is a fascinating field of study, and honestly, given the other reviews, I expected a much better written book. If you like reading stereo instructions or wiring schematics, this could be viewed as riveting I suppose. I finished it, but it was a challenge.