Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth Gentry Jr.  

The book is Before Israel Fell by Kenneth Gentry Jr. It was originally published in 1998 by Victorious Hope Publishing. I read the Third Edition paperback published in 2010. I read it in August of 2024.  

The title is the period of history before Jerusalem fell. The Romans fought a war against Jerusalem from 66AD to 73AD. The Jewish temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Gentry’s book discusses when the book of Revelation was written. This is important because it determines what the prophecies were about in Revelation.  

The general consensus for the dating of the book of Revelation is 90AD. If this is the case then the prophesies of the tribulation and persecution and the coming of the Son of Man and Christ’s judgement and wrath being poured out cannot be about the Jews and the temple because the temple would have already been destroyed in 70AD. But if Revelation was written before 70AD as Gentry proposes then the prophecies pertain to the destruction of the Jews and the temple.  

The dating of the book of Revelation matters because it makes or breaks postmillennial eschatology.  

I read Kenneth Gentry Jr.’s other book He Shall Have Dominion several years ago and it’s part of what won me over to the postmil eschatology. I’ve known about Before Jerusalem Fell for a long time and have been meaning to read it.  

My pastor is currently doing a series on Revelation and he asked me about the dating of Revelation. I couldn’t give him a good answer. He bought the book to read and so I did too.  

Gentry gives a couple arguments for the dating of Revelation to be before 70AD, one external and one internal. That is, external and internal to the Bible.  

I believe he succeeds in proving his case.  

The main source of evidence for the majority of scholars and theologians to date the book of Revelation at 90AD is a reference from the early church father Eusebius about something Irenaeus said.  

The apostle John wrote Revelation. John had a disciple named Polycarp. Irenaeus claimed to have met Polycarp when he was a child. Irenaeus also claims Polycarp said that John wrote Revelation during his exile under the rule of the Roman Emperor Domitian. Domitian ruled from 81AD to 96AD. That’s why scholars date Revelation at around 90AD.  

Gentry writes: 

“Quite naturally Irenaeus’s connection to Polycarp is of much historical importance and tends to lend even greater weight to Irenaeus’s statement. Despite this revered meeting, Irenaeus, it should be noted, claims to have seen Polycarp as a nais, a child, in the “first age of our life.” Furthermore, he specifically says that he did not take notes of this meeting. A long period of time perhaps three-quarters of a century passed before he wrote his Against Heresies. Thus, some of his memories of those who saw John “face to face” (e.g., Polycarp) could have been diminished by both his own youthful immaturity at the time of his meeting with Polycarp and the passage of a great deal of time.” (p62) 

So this is second and third-hand information. Not only that, it’s second-hand information is from when Irenaeus was a child. It’s incredible to think that this is the most substantial source for dating Revelation at 90AD. It’s laughable.  

Also, Gentry points out that Irenaeus’s framing of time is not the most reliable source even as a learned adult. For example, he believed that Jesus was in his 50s when he started his ministry, even though the Bible says he was 30 (Luke 3:23).  

From Gentry’s book: 

“Irenaeus’s Historical Errors 

In Against Heresies we read a very unusual historical statement: 

‘For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Master’s age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; 

….But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord’s disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things.'” (p63) 

This book made me think of other complex issues that I need to nail down in my Christian theology. I want to understand scripture. I want to be able to articulate exactly what I believe about everything in my theology and doctrine. Of course, I want to be as right as I can, but I know we can’t know everything perfectly this side of glory. I understand that. But we can at least land on a doctrinal side with everything. Even if it turns out we’re wrong.  

The key to right believing is scripture. Scripture must always win over historical tradition or convention. That’s why I like Gentry because he starts and ends with scripture.  

Gentry writes: 

“the convictions of orthodox, conservative Christianity must recognize that the essential and determinative evidence ought to be drawn from the internal testimony of the scriptural record itself,” (p113) 

It was a little confusing keeping up with the dates and timelines of emperors and church fathers. Although, Gentry is a good writer. He breaks down these heady scholarly, historical topics into accessible passages. This book was readable for any layman.  

I learned a lot from this book. There is a lot about history and geography. Church history. Jewish and Roman history. It was great. I love putting the Bible and its authors into historical context. We don’t reflect often enough on the fact that the Bible is history. These people really lived in our timeline in reality. To hear from Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, like the John from the Bible who saw Christ on the cross. It pulls these characters out of “myth” and into reality. From the subjective to the objective. That’s remarkable.  

I’d recommend this to Christians who are contemplating the eschatological positions. Obviously it’s a pro postmil book. But it provides good insight to history and scripture to answer some of these big questions about the end times. Great book.  

**************************************************** 

Notable Quotables 

“””” 

As Berkhof noted in his standard hermeneutics manual: “The word of God originated in a historical way, and therefore, can be understood only in the light of history.” From this general principle he goes on to assert strongly that: “It is impossible to understand an author and to interpret his words correctly unless he is seen against the proper historical background. ” (p19) 

“””” 

This crucial statement occurs at the end of a section in which Irenaeus is dealing with the identification of “666” in Revelation 13. That statement, along with its larger context, is generally translated: We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign. (p46-47) 

“””” 

contrary to Irenaeus, Tertullian placed John’s banishment after his being dipped in a cauldron of burning oil, which Jerome says was in Nero’s reign.37 Photus preserved extracts of “Life of Timotheus” in which he states that John’s banishment was under Nero. Others who record a preDomitianic date for John’s banishment include: Epiphanius (Heresies 51:12, 33), Arethas (Revelation 7:1-8), the Syriac versions of Revelation, History of John, the Son of Zebedee, and Theophylact (John). (p54) 

“””” 

It must be remembered that dating then was very imprecise because chronicles were not kept by Christians. As Robinson notes regarding problems of chronology during that era: “The sources, Roman, Jewish, and Christian, are largely uncoordinated and share no common canon of chronology such as is supposed by any modern historian.” (p56) 

“””” 

When Irenaeus says that the “Pastor of Hermas” is canonical; that the head of the Nicolaitans was the Deacon Nicolas; and that the version of the LXX. was written by inspiration; — we know what estimate to put on his appeals to apostolic tradition. (p61) 

“””” 

Quite naturally Irenaeus’s connection to Polycarp is of much historical importance and tends to lend even greater weight to Irenaeus’s statement. Despite this revered meeting, Irenaeus, it should be noted, claims to have seen Polycarp as a nais, a child, in the “first age of our life.” Furthermore, he specifically says that he did not take notes of this meeting. A long period of time perhaps three-quarters of a century passed before he wrote his Against Heresies. Thus, some of his memories of those who saw John “face to face” (e.g., Polycarp) could have been diminished by both his own youthful immaturity at the time of his meeting with Polycarp and the passage of a great deal of time. (p62) 

“””” 

Irenaeus’s Historical Errors 

In Against Heresies we read a very unusual historical statement: 

“For how had He disciples, if He did not teach? And how did He teach, if He had not a Master’s age? For He came to Baptism as one Who had not yet fulfilled thirty years, but was beginning to be about thirty years old; 

….But the age of 30 years is the first of a young man’s mind, and that it reaches even to the fortieth year, everyone will allow: but after the fortieth and fiftieth year, it begins to verge towards elder age: which our Lord was of when He taught, as the Gospel and all the Elders witness, who in Asia conferred with John the Lord’s disciple, to the effect that John had delivered these things” (p63) 

“””” 

Lightfoot speaks of the Neronic persecution in comparison to the Domitianic thus: “the earlier and more severe assault on the Christians [occurred] in the latter years of the reign of Nero. 

…dramatic language of Revelation “does not fit the short local reign of terror under Domitian. Nero affected the imagination of the world as Domitian, as far as we know, never did.” (p81) 

“””” 

Miscellanies 7:17 [Clement] it is equally plain that he also holds that all revelation given through the apostles ceased under Nero. How could he have made this statement if John’s Revelation had been written about 25 years after Nero? (p86) 

“””” 

To the unprejudiced mind it must be somewhat disconcerting to discover that the evidence from Eusebius is internally self-contradictory. For Eusebius twice establishes the Apostle’s longevity based on Irenaeus’s confident statement that he talked with an eyewitness of the Apostle (i.e., Polycarp) who says John wrote Revelation while exiled by Domitian. But in another place he discounts Irenaeus’s teachings that Papias heard John and that John wrote Revelation. If Eusebius believed the one report, why not the other? The two issues (1) that the Apostle John wrote Revelation (2) during Domitian’s reign are bound up together in Irenaeus. To doubt one necessarily would seem to entail the doubting of the other. (p103) 

“””” 

the convictions of orthodox, conservative Christianity must recognize that the essential and determinative evidence ought to be drawn from the internal testimony of the scriptural record itself, (p113) 

“””” 

As Chilton observes: “Verse 7 [i.e., of Revelation 11 announces the theme of the book, which is not the Second Coming of Christ, but rather the Coming of Christ in judgment upon Israel, in order to establish the Church as the new Kingdom.” Clarke argues for an early date for Revelation based on Revelation 1:7: “By this the Jewish people are most evidently intended, and therefore the whole verse may be understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews; and is a presumptive proof that the Apocalypse was written before the final overthrow of the Jewish state.” (p127) 

“””” 

Christ then goes on to describe the desolation of Israel’s “house” (temple) in Matthew 24. In Matthew 24:1-2 He clearly and distinctly makes reference to the destruction of the Temple. And in the following context He expands on this as involving the “abomination of desolation” in the Temple (v. 15) and the “great tribulation” (v. 21), which signify “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory” (v. 30). These events are said to be coming upon “this generation” (v. 34), i.e., the very generation which rejected and “pierced” Him. That generation was to be destroyed in His JudgmentComing. And we know as a matter of indisputable historical fact that the Temple was destroyed by Titus’s August, A.D. 70, siege of it.? Hence, as Jesus bears His cross to Calvary He exhorts the “daughters of Jerusalem” to weep for themselves because of the coming judgment (Luke 23:28-31; cp. Rev. 6:16). (p130) 

“””” 

How could such events so remotely stretched out into the future be “at hand”? But if the expected events were to occur within a period of from one to five years as in the case with Revelation if the book were written prior to A.D. 70 then all becomes clear. (p141) 

“””” 

the total devastation of Jerusalem itself. This destruction was beyond comparison according to Josephus: “Whereas the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations. (p143) 

“””” 

Second, the first persecution of Christianity by Imperial Rome occurred from A.D. 64 to A.D. 68 (ending at the death of Nero). This persecution was not only the first and one of the most severe, 32 but it was the one that brought about the deaths of at least two of Christianity’s greatest leaders: Peter and Paul. Furthermore, with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem, Christianity would be clearly distinguished forever from Judaism. (p144) 

“””” 

In the first division (ch. xi. 1-14) . . • Jerusalem and the temple are spoken of as still standing.”‘ Düsterdieck writes with deep conviction regarding Revelation 11:1ff.: “It is sufficient for chronological interest, that prophecy depends upon the presupposition that the destruction of the Holy City had not yet occurred. This is derived with the greatest evidence from the text, since it is said, ver. 2, that the Holy City, i.e., Jerusalem, is to be trodden down by the Gentiles. … This testimony of the Apoc., which is completely indisputable to an unprejudiced mind, can still be misunderstood only with great difficulty.”? Weiss concurs: “The time of the Apocalypse is also definitely fixed by the fact that according to the prophecy in chap. xi. it was manifestly written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which in xi. 1 is only anticipated.”3 Writing at about the same time, Macdonald expresses a similarly strong conviction: “It is difficult to see how language could more clearly point to Jerusalem, and to Jerusalem as it was before its overthrow.” (p165-166) 

“””” 

“When Paul comes into a city, he first goes into the synagogue and there preaches to the Jews. The synagogue is the natural center for him, 

Up until the era of the mid-A.D. 60s (but not after A.D. 70) the Romans were prone to identify Christianity as a sect of Judaism, intimately and necessarily bound up with it. (p227) 

“””” 

This marked the official entry of Roman imperial forces into the campaign. Jerusalem and the Temple finally fell and were utterly destroyed by Titus, Vespasian’s son, in late summer, A.D. 70: 

Now from the time of this official imperial engagement in the . Jewish War (early Spring, A.D. 67) until the time of the Temple’s destruction and Jerusalem’s fall (early September, A.D. 70) is a period right at the symbolic figure of 1260 days (or 42 months or 3/2 years). (p252-253) 

“””” 

Nero’s cruelty in this episode caused the revulsion of even the gladiatorially de-sensitized Romans. They felt of the torment of the Christians “that they were sacrificed not on the altar of public interest, but to satisfy the cruelty of one man. (p280) 

“””” 

Culturally the peace of the Roman Empire (i.e., pax Romana) was supposedly related to the blessing of the emperor.104 To refuse his worship would be regarded as an insurrectionist contempt for Roman rule that would threaten social and political upheaval in the empire, an empire that had brought peace, stability, and prosperity to all those living in the Mediterranean world. To refuse the emperor cult would be tantamount to a “hatred of the human race.” (p280-281) 

“””” 

The Jews responded to the favors of Rome (as varying as these were under different local procurators) by offering “sacrifices twice every day for Caesar, and for the Roman people. •”112 This was doubtless regarded by Rome as “a very fair equivalent 13 to the imposition of the Imperial Divinity’s inclusion in the Pantheon of Rome’s subjects. In other words, it appeased the emperor’s expectation for some form of religious veneration by the Jews. 

[Josephus] And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans: for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account: and when many of the high priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon. 

“””” 

and Ladd write of “the alleged persecution” under Domitian. 18 After reviewing the ancient evidence, Hort notes of the data regarding Domitian’s outrageous conduct that “there is nothing in the accounts which suggests anything like a general persecution of Christians, even at Rome: it would rather seem that Christians of wealth or station were mainly, if not wholly, struck at. (p288) 

“””” 

That is, when engaged from the perspective of an unflinching commitment to Scripture as the Word of God, it should be the procedure of Biblical Introduction to allow the most weight to the Scripture’s self-testimony regarding its own historical composition. 

Irenaeus was subject to error even on matters he claims to have heard from first-hand sources (such as when he asserted that Jesus lived to be almost fifty years old). (p334) 

“””” 

I stand in wonder at the blatant schizophrenia of their argument! House and Ice dogmatically argue that Revelation is to be interpreted from a futurist viewpoint, that is, they aver that its prophecy in Revelation 4:1-22:5 regards distantly future events. But then they “prove” a late date by pointing to emperor worship in the text of Revelation and apply it to Domitian. (p348)