PMW 2025-090 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In an on-line posting, dispensationalist, Baptist pastor Miska Wilhelmsson (of Finland) has critiqued portions of my Revelation commentary. He does not seem to like it. And if I read it like he did, I would not like it either! One of his articles is titled: “Preterism, Church History, and Kenneth Gentry’s New Revelation Commentary.” I will briefly reply to his concerns.

My critic

Wilhelmsson opens his critique by writing:

“I want to point out a few issues relating to Gentry’s commentary, and how this novel preterist understanding of Revelation 1:7 connects to church history.

“Notice (see picture below from Gentry’s commentary) how after speaking of this preterist understanding of Revelation 1:7, Gentry follows with a paragraph saying ‘This judgment, being a prophetically-determined, redemptive-historical event, had enormous implications. First…Second…Third…Fourth…Fifth…’ And then Gentry follows by saying ‘Early post-Apostolic Christians saw AD 70 in these terms, including Justin (Dial. 1:35), Origen…, Tertullian (Adv. Jud. 8:18)….’

“So, when the reader reads Gentry’s commentary, how is he supposed to understand what Gentry says regarding these early post-apostolic Christians? Well, it certainly seems that the ‘in these terms’ might suggest that they understood Revelation 1:7 as a preteristic ‘judgment-coming’ event in 70AD, which is what Gentry has been here talking about, right? Well… when we actually read the early church fathers, we find out that they would have NOTHING to do with ‘these terms’ of preterist understanding!”

My response

Unfortunately, Pastor Wilhelmsson misreads my commentary and therefore misunderstands my argument and consequently misdirects his readers.

The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation
This commentary is an 1800 page, two-volume deeply exegetical, academic commentary on the Bible’s most mysterious book. It takes an orthodox preterist approach, giving serious attention to the details of John’s many visions.

Click: The Divorce of Israel
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Nowhere (even in Before Jerusalem Fell) have I ever argued that Rev. 1:7 was cited by an early church father as referring to AD 70. And I certainly would have done so had I found such a quote. And I do not do so here in my commentary, where Wilhelmsson thinks I am arguing for such. Rather I am speaking of the actual, factual historical judgment that occurred in AD 70: it (not Rev. 1:7 as a literary text) was widely recognized as God’s judgment on Israel. Hence I write “This judgment, being a prophetically-determined, redemptive-historical event, had enormous implications.” Read this again: “This judgment, being a prophetically-determined, redemptive-historical event, had enormous implications.” Again I am clearly referring to the AD 70 judgment itself.

Then immediately after my sentence that Wilhelmsson cites, I begin listing my “first” through “fifth” arguments (to which Wilhelmsson refers). These arguments show that the historical event of AD 70 was widely recognized as a divine judgment — not that Rev. 1:7 was widely held in antiquity as signifying this. Mr. Wilhelmsson has misread me. And then rebuked me for his misreading of my argument.

Let me be clear, since Wilhelmsson has so confusedly responded to my argument: I am not arguing that John’s verse itself “brought God’s wrath upon the Jews” (my first point). Nor am I arguing that John’s sentence written at Rev. 1:7 “finally and forever concluded the anticipatory old covenant era (my second point). Nor that this verse, even in the original koine Greek, “dramatically closed down the typological sacrificial system” (my third point). Nor that Rev. 1:7, even in the earliest Uncial manuscripts, “ensured the universalization of the Christian faith” (my fourth point). Nor do I argue that the words chosen by John and related in Rev. 1:7 “vindicated the Christians who were being persecuted by the Jews” (my fifth point). John’s verse relates a powerful message, but does not in itself cause the events. John’s statement did not effect these things; the AD 70 catastrophe effected these things — and was recognized as such by the church fathers that I cited.

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
Doctoral dissertation defending a pre-AD 70 date for Revelation’s writing (459 pp; paperback). Thoroughly covers internal evidence from Revelation, external evidence from history, and objections to the early date by scholars.

For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/

Note Wilhelmsson’s own abbreviated citation of my commentary reads: “This judgment, being a prophetically-determined, redemptive-historical event, had enormous implications. First…Second…Third…Fourth…Fifth…” It was the “judgment” in the AD 70 event that had enormous implication; not Rev. 1:7 as a literary statement. And his next sentence states: “And then Gentry follows by saying “Early post-Apostolic Christians saw AD 70 in these terms, including Justin (Dial. 1:35), Origen…, Tertullian (Adv.Jud. 8:18…” Yes! I do! Those church fathers do see AD 70 in these terms. But I do not say that they see Rev. 1:7 in these terms. Wilhelmsson is quite mistaken in declaring “ it certainly seems that the ‘in these terms’ might suggest that they understood Revelation 1:7 as a preteristic ‘judgment-coming’ event in 70 AD.” That was not my point at all.

In fact, nowhere in my writings do I cite an early church father as teaching that Rev. 1:7 refers to AD 70. Not even in my carefully researched Before Jerusalem Fell, which cites many church fathers as evidence for the early recognition of the reason for the AD 70 catastrophe, i.e., God was judging the first century Jews for killing their Messiah and calling down his blood upon themselves and their children (Matt. 27:25).

I do cite Thomas Whittemore’s 1856 commentary on Rev. 1:7 as stating that “This coming of Christ was that virtual display of divine power which was seen at the overthrow of Jerusalem and the abolition of the Mosaic religion.” This is similar to Talmudic scholar John Lightfoot’s 1654 Revelation commentary, which states (as I cite on p. 319):

“Speaking of Christ’s ‘coming with clouds,’ from Dan. vii.13, and from the words of Christ himself [e.g., Mt 24:30], he at once teacheth that he takes at Daniel, and speaks of Christ’s coming and reigning, when the four monarchies were destroyed; and especially referreth to the first most visible evidence of his power and dominion, in coming to destroy his enemies, the Jewish nation, and their city.” (Lightfoot 1654: 3:333)

But these two men are not “early church fathers.”

The Beast of Revelation
by Ken Gentry

A popularly written antidote to dispensational sensationalism and newspaper exegesis. Convincing biblical and historical evidence showing that the Beast was the Roman Emperor Nero Caesar, the first civil persecutor of the Church. The second half of the book shows Revelation’s date of writing, proving its composition as prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. A thought-provoking treatment of a fascinating and confusing topic.

For more study materials, go to: KennethGentry.com

In my citing the early church fathers after listing my five points, I clearly state that “Early post-Apostolic Christians saw AD 70 in these terms” (emphasis added). Note I say that they “saw AD 70 in these terms,” not that they saw Rev. 1:7 in these terms. “These terms” refers to my five points which Wilhelmsson has just listed, none of which is speaking of Rev. 1:7. These five points are highlighting the enormity of the historical collapse of the temple system in AD 70. Again I do not say early church fathers saw Rev. 1:7 in this light, despite Wilhelmsson’s misreading, which he emphasizes by his underlining. I cannot cite an early church father in direct support of my view of Rev. 1:7. Nor can Wilhelmsson cite any early church father presenting the dispensational system, which arose in the early nineteenth century.

My purpose in providing my five-point argument was to show why I would believe that Rev. 1:7 refers to AD 70. I am showing the several enormous implications of the AD 70 event as a means of explaining why I believe Rev. 1:7 would apply to them. Thus, I offer references to the church fathers in order to show how AD 70 was understood by many in the early church. Not how Rev. 1:7 was interpreted back then.

Four Views on the Book of Revelation (ed. by Marvin Pate)

Helpful presentation of four approaches to Revelation. Ken Gentry writes the chapter on the preterist approach to Revelation, which provides a 50 page survey of Revelation .

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com