The Beast of Revelation

T HE BEAST OF REV­ELATION, by Dr. Ken­neth L. Gentry Jr. Pub­

lished by the Institute for Christian Eco­nomics, 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- on­ly three typographic errors (pp. xxxvii, 70 & back cover): excellent for an important flrst edition of a major work. The cover simulates the os­tentatious style of today's sensa­tionalistic prophecy volumes, the background image of ancient Ro­man 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 page­turner. I read it cover to cover in one sitting. This result obtains from the controversial subject mat­ter and the author's intriguing hand­ling thereof.

The Publisher's Preface by Dr. Gary North deserves separate con­sideration. 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 pre­decessors, materially enhances the volume to which it is annexed The preface suggests that an out­standing 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 identi­fies a narrowly-deflned topic and refuses to allow his focus to wander. Prophecy

A review article by Martin G. Selbrede

books are generally sprawling, "kitchen­sink" affairs: this one is different. Dr. Gentry delivers what he promises at the outset, to wit, a focused, sustained argu­ment in favor of two far-reaching pro­positions: (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 un­waveringly on track. While I admire the form of Dr. Gentry's book-length argu­ment, the lay reader will find the con­tent to be of greater moment We turn our attention therefore to the general the­sis of the book.

Several major schools of interpreta~ tion of Revelation have arisen during the last twenty centuries. Futurism re­gards 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. Over­simplified, the Historicist, Spiritual, Idealist, and Apocalyptic schools gen­

erally hold that Revelation spans the years between the fust and se­condadvents (hereafter, the inter-ad­vent period), with considerable di­versity as to details. For our pur­poses, it is enough to see that the Past, the Present, and the Future have all been advanced as the pro­per home for Revelation's pro­phecies. Dr. Gentry's book pro­motes the preterist interpretation, and is the most definitive exposi­tion to date thereof.

The various millennialist op­tions invariably intrude into any discussion of Revelation, in con­sideration of its twentieth chapter. The relationship between millen­nial viewpoints and the above­listed schools of interpretation de­serves some attention. Premillen­nialism is almost unifonnly futur­ist in outlook, and hostile to all al­ternate schools, Amillennialism has generally favored both inter­advent and preterist interpretations, depending on the spokesman; its millennia] tenets are compatible with either option, and some ex­positors even blend in futurist de­tails.

What concerns me with respect to modem (as opposed to historic) postmillennialism is its present single­minded advocacy of preterism, and the unnatural dichotomy its exponents ad­vance in defense of same. Futurism or Preterism: Choose Ye. Yet, the inter-ad­vent 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 postmil­lennialists are necessarily preterists. This erroneous notion has cued premil­lennialists 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 move­ment 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 grow­ing problem? Queried over the phone, he a!fll'llled his commitment to postmil­leimialism f'.ti'st, preteriSm second And if preterism were erroneous? His post­millennial position would not in the least be affected, because futurism Isn't the only remaining option. Historical postmillennialism has also strongly ad­vancedmanywell-arguedinter-adventin­terpretations 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 com­pleting 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 what­soever on the merits of postmillennial­ism. 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 oppor­tunistic futurists out there in this gentle but firm way -- I didn't write this re­view in order to place a sword into the hands of postmillennialisrn's . oppo­nents.) 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 ex­position impossible. Whereas the prob­lem 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 Jeru­salem 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 rem­salem's fall, the preterist interpretation of Revelation would all but be estab­iished, 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 pre­t'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 [anti­premillennialism]"? Dr. Gentry's text re­veals 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 blud­geon 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 im­mediate 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 cor­responded 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 dan­gerous 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. 3·80) 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, ex­posing 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 des­cribe the critical landscape below.

Dr. Gentry identifies the Beast witlt imperial Rome, the· seven heads corre­sponding to Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero and Galba (pg. 104). Imperial Rome is in­dicated ~ue to the signal reference to seven mountains at Rev. 17:9 (pg. 12-13). Let's stop here and examine wheth­er 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 poS­sible explanation of the alleged double­referent? After all, if any one of Dr. Gentry1s assertions haS a plausible alter­nate 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 multipli­City 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), Ac­cording tci this ·alternate 'view, we are living in the age of the symbQlic ten

horns, which intriguingly entails a stag­gering 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 sove­reignties 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 Vesu­vius, or rather the downfall of a king­dom. 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-moun­tains that attack other mountains) from Psalm 76:4 conveys. Even God's king­dom is depicted as a mountain (Dan. 2:45). Fairbairn achlally devotes one whole appendix in his lnJerpretatio11. of Prophecy to the prophetic use of moun­tains as symbols for kingdoms.

Conclusion: the non-preterist hy­pothesis that regards the heads as suc­cessive 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 im­mediate audience (whether that audience be pre-70 AD. as Dr. Gentry presup­poses, 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 uni­formly 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 re­view, 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 as­serting 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, be­cause 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 de­tailed 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 sui­cide 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. 29·39 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 objec­tions 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 argu­ment for one's case) occur only eight times ·throughout the entire work. The average book on proPhecy begs the ques­tion 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 double­referent 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 war~ 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 evi­dence, 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 evi­dence when one considers that the ave­rage Hebrew calculating out Nero's name (assuming he knew to annex the tide) w~uld come up with 676 (see George ~almon's 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~ple of the requited misspelling'! Again, I believe special pleading has been resorted to e~en here, as the Ara~ 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, trans­literated 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 Eng­lish apostrophe) could easily have been wiped out by whatever damaged the adjacent letters. The yod is regar~d as deliberately omitted because insuffiCient room for the letter is provided between tbe Q and damaged S. ·Its absence is in­fe"ed, with auxiliar}r assutnptions re­'-garding the scribe's orthography and tendency to mortise letterforms sup~ pressed. This is not, then, all that per~ feet or unequivocal a proof. Compared to the earlier N abothean itiscnption at Hebron (47 A.D.) that spells_ Cae~~ 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 Lexi~ con in favor of the defective spelling, there is no guarantee that J !~$trow 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 misspel­ling were recorded in the earliest dic­tionary 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 sym­metry 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 gen~ally discredited by Gentry on matters his­torical.

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 advan~d by Ethel· berf · Stauff~r, 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 viewpbin~ 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 pocice~. Unless Revelation's dating can :with absolu~ certainty be assigned to pre-70 A.D; .by some other line of unequivocal evidence, such alter­nate hypotheses as Stauffer's will con­tinue to weaken Dr. Gentry's case: ·

For the record, this reviewer regatds n~ither solution fQr 666 as convincing, prefeiring rather Vitringa's and Heng­stenberg's identification from Ezra 2: 13 • · the name of the Beast is Adonikam. This solution utilizes no extra-Biblical considerations whatsoever, tying to­gether 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. bet~r 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 omega­nu can drop ·50 from its calculated Hebrew sum ·(making Nero a non­uniq\le solution), this argument en­tangles 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 evi­dently 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 chal­lenge. That a rationale for Nero=666 can be sustained, who can deny? But whether more than this has been ac­complished by Dr. Gentry is still un­certain.

Dr. Gentry takes into consideration how fll'St century Christians would inter­pret 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 discus­sing Rev. 11:8 when he argues Jerusa­lem 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-under­stood 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 late­date 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 figur­atively 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 speak­ing 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 Revela­tion's date of composition. The prob­lem, 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 an­swered by an apocalyptic death-race (Stauffer, pg. 184-185).

Of immediate consequence is the scope and considered target of the Nero­man persecution versus the Dornitianic. As to scope, the persecution was limit­ed 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 inci­dental consideration to the narrow geo­graphical scope of the Neronian persecu­tion, 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 evi­dence" for a Dornitianic persecution is that it "proceeds solely from Christian sources" (pg. 170). This is certainly no compelling reason to reject the testi­mony. 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 persecu­tion 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 s~g 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 takes~ 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 apo~ cryphal Acts of Leucius (Sahn.on, pg·. 248 riote}.· His historical-blunders are legendary, as Lightfoot pointed out in 1876: "Epiphanius states · that Aiito­Iiinus 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 ~ame 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 accom­modate positive testimony for the early~ 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 th~ ·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 date·s to the other

boOks:. this strategem assures a uniform discrediting of the biblical texts. The rest of the New Testament books are ~signed late dates to distance them froni the oireputed" . authors, making them the product of ghost writers and ~tOrs 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 Jeru~ 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 sui­cide, because liberals don't believe in predictive prophecy; So the~ was written in the reign of Galba. and mis­represents 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 early­date advocates (pgs. 83-84); for· they were guided by hostility to God's Word, assigning Revelation to the 67·70 A.D. timeframe in order to discredit the be· loved disciple as a misguided Jewish zea· lot - I am therefore surprised by Or. Gen­try's statement that the Netonic dating was the IOOte conservative option in the late 1800's (pg. 87), insofar as all lib. eial ~logians 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 verse ~ 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 unpre­cedented as this deserves considerable ·attention in · the Word. But if the pte• cedent of Scripfure be observed, we are forced to consider the Babylonian Cap­tivity and destruction of Solomon's temple as the only known divine· pat­tern. Balancing his acctJUnt with materi· al of this nature will strengthen Dr. Gentry's position, for it would provide justification for one's chosen perspee~ 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 glorifi­cation.

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 ~yooci Dr. Gentry agrees that the measurement of the temple refers to its preservation. Since the literal temple was not pre­served, but rather destroyed as I eslis pre~

dieted, Dr. Gentry is forced to recant his strong suit almost immediately after introducing it, making the temple pro­per refer to the body of Christians, and the outer court to the actual literal temple. These are major ad hoc assump­tions, and indicate that in fact applica­tion of literality to Rev. 11:1 is unwar­ranted 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 struc­ture of verse 1 prevents him from hav­ing his cake and eating it too. The ac­tion 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 por­tion of the temple. Such collisions, as Fairbairn noted, are signposts demand­ing non-literal interpretation (not unlike the incompatible "rnillennial" land divi­sions in Israel as given by Obadiah and Ezekiel, a nightmare no premillen­nialist 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 accom­modate such considerations (if they prove out legitimate) if and when he executes a revision of the presently con­sidered volume. In any event, identi­fying 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 con­sidering what I believe to be the leading objective evidence for Revelation's date of composition. That evidence is con­tained 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 Jeru­salem 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 hy­pothesis, as I surely agree with him that Luke 21:24 speaks of the destruc­tion 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 tradi­tionally 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 post­Galba Rome very well: it was post­Galba Rome that demolished Jerusalem.

Dr. Gentry further argues that literal Jerusalem is in view because the text demands something that "could be trod­den 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 Chil­ton. 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). Under­stood 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 docu­ments. 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 speci­fied by Dr. Morecraft, that not all ap­parent parallel passages are truly paral­lel. 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 estab­lish a preterist interpretation of Revela­tion. 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 particu­lar 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 satisfi~d with the required corielation, if one can be established, especially if it can counter­act 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 still~ 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 early~ date theory. The use·Dr. 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 ofReve­lation's ·date (pg. 149 note), and would therefore have been exp<)sed to the pro­position 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 op­portunity 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 wt­sheathed sword. If preterismJs. tile. cor­rect system of intet:pretation, I would welcome a rethinking ofPaulinechrono­logy, as such would only enhance its accuracy. But if preterism is only plaus­ible, there is no imperative need to over­turn 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 thathew~ "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 manu­scripts 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 e~lier in this r~view, an additional piQb­lem crops up with Dr. Gentry's utiliza­ti<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 Pat­mas! The Beast is a nice guy after all, assuming.· Dr. Gentry has. Epiphanius fig~d 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" h~d but one member, C~us by name. Epiphanius invent~d 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 • page~

when he wrote that the Apocalypse was written toward the end of the 1st cen~ 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 r~gardiilg 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 arti~

cle by touching on the most sensitive topic of all: what does Jesus mean when He says "Behold, I come quick­ly''? I agree with Dr. Gentry (and David Chilton) that futurism cannot harmon­izeits teachings with this divine declara­tion of the risen Christ Are inter-ad­vent inteqxetations under suspicion of "weaseling," also? That is a matter of interpretation: non-preterist postmillen~ 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 ob­serve that, given a non-preterist's inter­pretation 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 pre~. 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 s~mnd exposition oneself. Dr~ 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 im­portant one, a question that will deter­mine how twenty-two entire chapters of the Bible are to be understood. On this sobering point, as regards the inter­pretiltionill 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 scholar­ship and painstaking research. One may disagree with certain specific's of Gen­try's s9lution; but hiS careful anillysis deserves respect. His perspective is bur­dened by no more severe problems; than its rivals, and may arguably beJess en~ cumbered: it may be Dr~ Gentry whO has the mote in his eye, and his critics (this reviewf;r included) the ones sport­iQg 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:

.~~ ~uus~l ot <!bal~~~ou · · 3032 Hacienda Ct~ .. · · ·

Marietta, GA 30066

would take ail.entire book to answer Dr. Gentry's argument effectively. Theques .. tions raised in this review will only en­gender more "iron sharpening iron." .

it is a testimony to Dr; Gentry's Christian character that he asked Coun~ sel of Chillcedon· editor David GoOdrum to · find · a Recm1~tructiomst· hostile to his · )?ers~ti~e to review The Beast· of Revelatiq~. ··tjr. Gentry •·· believed that ~atd quest:io~s w:ou1d serve Christ's causebetter than pages ofback-slapp~g accQlades. I · ~ humbled ,by his ex­ample. ; 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: