Response to Kenneth Gentry – “The Date of Revelation and the Temple”

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Gentry’s claims that he published on his Facebook wall today:

Gentry begins by stating that his “first line of evidence” for the early (Neronic Dating) of Revelation is the “temple in Revelation 11”. Gentry, as most Partial-Preterist do, begin by appealing to the internal evidence to assist them with their proposal of the Neronic dating:

“The first line of evidence I would present for the early date of Revelation is the presence of the temple in Revelation 11. In Revelation 11:1, 2 we read: “And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.”Here we find a Temple standing in a city called “the holy city.””

Gentry states:

“Surely John, a Christian Jew, has in mind historical Jerusalem when he speaks of “the holy city.” This seems necessary in that John is writing scripture and Jerusalem is frequently called the “holy city” in the Bible. For example: Isaiah 48:2; 52:1; Daniel 9:24; Nehemiah 11:1-18; Matthew 4:5; 27:53.”

Of course, it is clear that John has in mind the city of Jerusalem, but what is presupposed here is that it must be the historical city prior to its destruction in AD. 70 that John envisions. This is read into the text, not exegeted from the text. Dispensational and non-Dispensational scholars agree that this must be the “holy city” of Jerusalem, what we don’t agree on is at “what point is John seeing the temple?” Is it prior to the destruction of Jerusalem that John is receiving the vision and therefore is seeing its–the historical temple–as destroyed, or is it simply a future temple that will be erected again in Jerusalem at a later date? This is the question and Preterists have unfortunately read into the text the point they are trying to prove.

Gentry goes on to appeal to (vs.8) to reconcile that this is where the Lord was crucified. Again, no scholar disagrees with these comments, what is disagreed with is the notion that the temple is the historical temple prior to its destruction in AD. 70.

“In addition, verse 8 informs us that this is the city where “also our Lord was crucified.” This was historical Jerusalem, according to the clear testimony of Scripture (Luke 9:22; 13:32; 17:11; 19:28). Interestingly, historical Jerusalem is never mentioned by name in Revelation. This may be due to the name “Jerusalem” meaning “city of peace.” In Revelation the meanings of specific names are important to the dramatic imagery. And so it would be inappropriate to apply the name “Jerusalem” to the city upon which woe and destruction are wreaked. Now what Temple stood in Jerusalem? Obviously the Jewish Temple ordained of God, wherein the Jewish sacrifices were offered. In the first century it was known as Herod’s Temple.”

Gentry then goes on to provide 4 reasons why it must be the historical structure, and why it could not be a future temple. Let’s look at the evidence that Gentry provides:

“(1) It was located in Jerusalem, as the text clearly states in verse 8. This can only refer to the Herodian Temple, which appears over and over again in the New Testament record. It was the very Temple which was even the subject of one of Christ’s longer prophetic discourses (Matt. 23:37-24:2ff).”

As I stated before, there is wide agreement that the temple John viewed was located in Jerusalem. This doesn’t prove that it could “only refer” to the Herodian Temple. This is again assumed. Point #1 is not a demonstration that it could only refer to the Herodian Temple, it does not follow that because it was located in Jerusalem that it had to only refer to the Herodian Temple. Just like the vision of Daniel in Daniel 9:24-27 didn’t have to refer to the destruction in AD. 70 either. These are presuppositions brought to the text.

“(2) Revelation 11:1, 2, written by the beloved disciple and hearer of Christ, seems clearly to draw upon Jesus’ statement from the Olivet Discourse. In Luke 21:5-7, the disciples specifically point to the Herodian Temple to inquire of its future; in Revelation 11:1 John specifically speaks of the Temple of God. In Luke 21:6 Jesus tells his disciples that the Temple will soon be destroyed stone by stone. A comparison of Luke 21:24 and Revelation 11:2 strongly suggests that the source of Revelation’s statement is Christ’s word in Luke 21. • Luke 21:24b: “Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” • Revelation 11:2b: “it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot for forty and two months.”The two passages speak of the same unique event and even employ virtually identical terms.”

What is odd to me here is that Gentry again makes another assertion without actually demonstrating the point. Why would we assume that Luke and John are speaking of the same thing merely by putting two verses side-by-side that speak of similar things? Is it not possible that John and Luke are seeing two possibly different temples? Why is this ruled out? Could there not be a future temple that is erected that could also experience trampling by the Gentiles? Gentry doesn’t argue against this. He doesn’t explain “until the time of the Gentiles,” and what that could possibly mean in relation to the trampling. Similarity doesn’t denote identity, a clear issue with Gentry’s parallelism.

There are three massive differences that Gentry ignores:

1. Luke describes the entire city of Jerusalem as being trampled by the Gentiles for her unfaithfulness, yet in Revelation 11:1 the sanctuary, altar, and worshipers are recognized as a sign that God has approved these things.
2. Revelation 11 in context indicates that Jerusalem isn’t destroyed completely during the treading mentioned in (vs.2). Revelation 11:8 shows us that the bodies of the witnesses are still present in the streets of Jerusalem and that there is a great earthquake in (vs.13) that occurs in Jerusalem killing 7,000 people. How could these things occur unless Jerusalem wasn’t destroyed completely?
3. In relation to the 42-months Luke is completely silent. He doesn’t mention the time that of the trampling. He clearly leaves this open-ended “until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” John gives a definitive period, Luke does not.

It is more likely that Luke in Luke 21:24 is referring to the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and that John is envisioning the temple destroyed by Gentile conquest in the future. There is nothing incompatible with this view.

“(3) According to Revelation 11:2 Jerusalem and the Temple were to be under assault for a period of forty-two months. We know from history that the Jewish War with Rome was formally engaged in Spring, A.D. 67, and was won with the collapse of the Temple in August, A.D. 70. This is a period of forty-two months, which fits the precise measurement of John’s prophecy. Thus, John’s prophecy antedates the outbreak of the Jewish War.”

Gentry has several incorrect statements here in #3. First of all, the First Jewish Revolt didn’t start in AD 67 but rather AD 66. Gentry has chosen to ignore the first year entirely from his assessment of the war. Yet, there seems to be a consensus on when the war actually did occur and that is not when Gentry says:

“However, there is nearly universal agreement that the First Jewish Revolt began in May, A.D. 66.”¹

“First Jewish Revolt, (ad 66–70), Jewish rebellion against Roman rule in Judaea. The First Jewish Revolt was the result of a long series of clashes in which small groups of Jews offered sporadic resistance to the Romans, who in turn responded with severe countermeasures. In the fall of ad 66 the Jews combined in revolt, expelled the Romans from Jerusalem, and overwhelmed in the pass of Beth-Horon a Roman punitive force under Gallus, the imperial legate in Syria.“²

The escalation of the war was clearly present in AD 66 with the raid of Masada, the lynching of the Romans in Jerusalem, and the Leaders of the Zealots. AD 66 cannot be discounted as the beginning of the war. Even Josephus disagrees with Gentry. He says that the war began in the 2nd year of Florus’ government which is AD 66, not AD 67. Gessius Florus was Roman procurator of Judea from 64 until 66:

“Now this war began in the second year of the government of Florus; and the twelfth year of the reign of Nero.“³

The second obvious error is the timing of the 42-months in alignment with Daniel’s visions in Daniel 12. In Daniel 12:11-12 the time of the Abomination of Desolation (AoD) is setup there in the holy place is 1,290 days. This is 42-months, which doesn’t at all align with what we have in Matthew 24:15. The temple was destroyed in AD. 70, it was supposed to have the daily tamid offering cease and the AoD set up in the holy place for 42-months, which is not reconcilable from the Preteristic position.

The timeline proposed by preterists doesn’t fit with the biblical timelines, at all.

“(4) After the reference to the destruction of the “temple of God” in the “holy city,” John later speaks of a “new Jerusalem” coming down out of heaven, which is called the “holy city” (Rev. 21:2) and which does not need a temple (Rev. 21:22). This new Jerusalem is apparently meant to supplant the old Jerusalem with its temple system. The old order Temple was destroyed in August, A.D. 70. Thus, while John wrote, the Temple was still standing, awaiting its approaching doom. If John wrote this twenty-five years after the Temple’s fall it would be terribly anachronous. The reference to the Temple is hard architectural evidence that gets us back into an era pre-A.D. 70.”

Number 4 is hardly convincing evidence. The connection between the two temples doesn’t mean that John is referring to the historical temple that was destroyed in AD. 70. Elsewhere in Scripture, we see a return to temple practices prior to the New Jerusalem (cf. Ezekiel 40-48). So, no, this is not compelling at all.

Conclusion: The internal evidence that is presented by Gentry in his Facebook has been responded to in full by non-preterists for decades. Gentry is still using arguments that have been addressed and debunked. It is my hope that our brother will deal with contemporary rebuttals and not simply restate old arguments.

For an excellent defence of the Domitian Dating please see M. Hitchcock’s Dissertation:

https://www.pre-trib.org/media/k2/assets/Documents/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf

---

References:

1. https://www.pre-trib.org/media/k2/assets/Documents/hitchcock-dissertation.pdf, p. 103.
2. https://www.britannica.com/event/First-Jewish-Revolt
3. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-20.html