What do you think?
Rate this book
Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ in the Canonical Scriptures
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
- GenresChristianityReligion
516 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1898
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 2, 2026
One of the big surprises for me was how "liberal" the attitude towards the Bible this book was compared to modern so-called conservative theologians. What modern conservative Bible commentator would write, "Fables, riddles, enigmas, allegories, parables, types, symbols, and idealistic pictures worthy of the most transcendent genius appear in great number and variety"? Or, "modern scientific research has quite effectually exploded the literal interpretation of the first of Genesis, so it is in a fair way to accomplish the like wholesome effect in exposing the essential absurdities of a literal explanation of apocalyptic prophecy"? Or, "Such presumptions of absolute perfection in a book act as barriers against a thorough scientific investigation of its contents and are prejudicial to the interests of truth"? These seem to be more like something a modern liberal Bible expositor would write than a conservative. Nonetheless, Terry's works served to influence generations of conservative scholars. Grokipedia: "Widely regarded as a seminal text, Biblical Hermeneutics served as a standard manual in 20th-century seminaries and theological education, influencing generations of students, pastors, and scholars in promoting disciplined, context-driven exegesis over subjective or allegorical approaches.[15] Its enduring impact lies in providing a balanced, evangelical methodology that upholds the Bible's clarity and divine authority while engaging modern critical tools.[15]"
I learned of this book because of a controversy I learned of between my friend Samuel M. Frost and the two authors of Beyond Creation Science, Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn. Martin and Vaughn rely heavily on Terry's definition of apocalyptic, especially for the early chapters of Genesis. Terry has a wider definition of apocalyptic than Frost or most modern scholars do. So Martin and Vaughn write, "The problem is that Frost is working from a formal and narrow definition of apocalyptic. Terry acknowledged that his wider definition was not the standard in his day, but that it was useful for the internal study of Scripture."
A great deal turns on this difference between the definition of apocalypse in Terry's and Frost's thinking as is made clear in Frost's review of Beyond Creation Science (BCS) and Martin's and Vaughn's response to that view. Martin and Vaughn state that Frost claims that "the one and only reason" that Terry claims that the early chapters are apocalyptic was that they contradict the science of his day. In fact, Frost never claims that that was the "one and only reason". He does claim that "The *reason* Terry applied apocalyptic to Genesis is *not* on the basis of Preterism and not on the basis of pure exegesis (emphasis original).
Quite a bit of virtual ink was spilled in Frost's v Martin and Vaughn's dispute on the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Martin and Vaughn write: "Frost uses this section in BCS [p 254] to launch into his charge that our view introduces a contradiction in Scripture. However, he did not read our material very carefully. We agree with his point that Genesis 1 and 2 are distinct, non-contradictory accounts. We explained this in later sections that presented our view of creation: Recapitulation takes a theme or subject already introduced and expands on the important or leading feature. Recapitulation zooms in for a closer look…. The double pattern is manifested in the two accounts of creation, Genesis 1:1-2:4 and Genesis 2:5-25. (BCS p. 282)"
I looked up the passage in BCS 282 and it isn’t made very clear that Martin and Vaughn are stating that Genesis 1 and 2 aren’t contradicting each other. Nor, I think, is it fair to say that Frost attributes the idea that these two chapters contradict each other to Martin and Vaughn. Frost writes, "First to be fair, Martin and Vaughn will be quoted: 'Young Earth Creationism implies that Genesis 1 *literally* contradicts Genesis 2' (emphasis original)"
Now in fact, Martin and Vaughn are correct on this point, but Frost struggles with might and main to show that there is no contradiction. He shows (correctly) that the Hebrew allows Genesis 2.19 to be translated with the pluperfect: "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him (NIV).'" The problem for Frost and other apologists is that the context requires the present tense. The verse immediately prior has God saying, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make (future tense) a helper suitable for him." This shows that the making of the animals in Genesis 2.19 is a future event with respect to 2.18. But Frost's view of the Bible will not allow him to accept this: "Here, unless we are to submit an obvious contradicton (whlch we cannot allow), the beasts of the field were already made before the creation of the Man."
Terry in fact has nothing to say on the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2, so this has been a rather lengthy bunny trail. I will lengthen it even further by examining Martin's and Vaughn's response to Frost's translation of 2 Peter 3.5-7: "For this is concealed from them willingly: that a heavens were of old and an earth by water and through water, having been held together by the word of God, through which things the then world being inundated by water perished, but the Now Heavens and The Earth by the same word are kept in store reserved for fire…"
Frost's translation says that a heavens and an earth were both held together by water and through water, a reference to Genesis, day *two*. Martin and Vaughn claim that Frost has mistranslated here, and prefer the more usual translation: "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water NIV," which would be a reference to day *three*. But in fact Frost is not alone in his translation of 2 Peter 3.5. The CSB, the Message, and the CEB all follow Frost's understanding of this verse.
Now the perishing of the world here is an interesting point, and Martin and Vaughn go to great lengths to show that the author of 2 Peter cannot mean that the physical world was destroyed. They argue that the Greek word for "word" (kosmos) has many different meanings, and here it means the covenant world. In fact, the proximity of this word for world to the heavens and earth strongly argues that in fact "world" is to be taken in the sense of the physical universe. Frost doesn’t like the implications of this either: "Since, obviously, the same moon, stars, earth, sun etc. were not destroyed in Noah's day!" Why obviously? Even Terry argues that the flood story is symbolic (for Terry, the ark is symbolic of salvation). If the whole story is symbolic, why can’t the whole universe be destroyed? Another alternative is that the author of 2 Peter *did* believe the entire universe was destroyed by water, as Edward Adams argues in The Stars Will Fall From Heaven.
Terry seems to accept the analyses of the critical scholars of his day. Concerning the Flood tales, he writes, "The writer is not careful to harmonize or reconcile his different sources, but weaves them together so as to produce a composite picture suitable for his purpose." He states that Joshua was written centuries after the events they describe. He waffles on the question of whether Daniel is pseudepigraphic, but seems to come down on the side of it being a forgery (though he doesn’t use that word, of course). He says of Daniel, "Why may not an inspired apocalypse be cast in a framework of narrative as unreal as that of the Book of Job?", incidentally showing that he does not accept the historicity of Job. Of Zechariah he writes, "The last six chapters of the Book of Zechariah are quite generally believed to be of different date and authorship from the first eight chapters" and he puts his analysis of Daniel after his analysis of Zechariah, indicating to me at least that he considers Daniel to have been written at a late date.
In common with modern critical scholars, Terry considers Daniel's four kingdoms to be Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. He interprets the ten horns of the fourth beast as ten Greek kings: five of them Ptolemaic and five of them Seleucid. Concerning the 70 weeks "The entire period extends from the proclamation of Cyrus, which authorized the restoration from Babylonian exile, unto the desolation of Jerusalem which the writer associates with Antiochus Epiphanes."
Terry's commentary on Revelation takes up a major part of this book (nearly half) and has been republished recently (2021) in a very nice edition edited by Kenneth L. Gentry and Jay Rogers. I have this book in my library and had read it before. I didn’t mind reading it again, because as is often the case, I had missed a lot on my first read-through.
Terry often sees the language of Revelation as symbolic, even when many commentators do not. For example, while most would agree that Antipas from Revelation 2.13 was a historic person, Terry believes that context and usage suggest a mystic name. Nor is the lake of fire literal: "If the beast is not a literal beast the lake of fire is not to be explained literally. The idea conveyed is rather that of complete destruction."
Terry was what today we would call a partial preterist. He believed that Jesus returned in 70 A.D., but unlike modern day full preterists, he believed in a future judgement. He believed we were living during the millennial period, the millennium signifying not a literal 1000 years but rather an indeterminate period which could last any amount of time, maybe as much as a million years! Contrary to the usual view that the New Jerusalem will descend to earth at the end of the millennium, "In point of fact this beloved city is to be understood as descending from heaven to earth (xxi, 2, 3, 10) DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE MILLENNIAL ERA; (emphasis original)" I hardly understand that.
Terry takes many opportunities to critique the historical interpretation of Revelation prevalent in his day. In interpreting the Euphrates vision, Terry states that "undue attention to incidental features of the larger picture tends to divert from the main purpose of the whole," and then follows this statement with a pretty incisive critique of the historical interpretation which sees this as the Turkish invasion of Constantinople.
In line with his generally symbolic interpretation of Revelation, Terry writes, "The foregoing notes have sufficiently shown how the Two Witnesses symbolize the witnessing Church of the apostolic age. As the innumerable multitude in chap. vii, 9-17, may include the sealed Israel of vii, 4-8, so these witnesses may also include the measured worshipers of xi, 1." This is a refreshing break from modern day dispensationalists who see the two witnesses as two literal fire-breathing men who will appear in the future.
Possibly Terry is best known in preterism circles for espousing the view that Babylon the Great of Revelation chapter 17 is *not* Rome, but rather Jerusalem. In Who Is This Babylon, Don K. Preston, possibly following Samuel Frost, writes "This is brand new." Preston is right in broad strokes, but seems to be wrong in details. Terry, as far as I have been able to determine, first espoused the view that Babylon was Jerusalem in Biblical Hermeneutics, first published in 1883. J. Russell Stuart beat it to him by a few years by publishing The Parousia in 1878. But Johann Gottfried Herder has them both beat by nearly a hundred years by his preterist book, Maran. Atha. Das Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, des neuen Testaments Siegel, published in 1779. I’m surprised I don’t hear more about Herder in preterist circles, although it might be because his writing is much inferior to Terry’s.
I learned of this book because of a controversy I learned of between my friend Samuel M. Frost and the two authors of Beyond Creation Science, Timothy Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn. Martin and Vaughn rely heavily on Terry's definition of apocalyptic, especially for the early chapters of Genesis. Terry has a wider definition of apocalyptic than Frost or most modern scholars do. So Martin and Vaughn write, "The problem is that Frost is working from a formal and narrow definition of apocalyptic. Terry acknowledged that his wider definition was not the standard in his day, but that it was useful for the internal study of Scripture."
A great deal turns on this difference between the definition of apocalypse in Terry's and Frost's thinking as is made clear in Frost's review of Beyond Creation Science (BCS) and Martin's and Vaughn's response to that view. Martin and Vaughn state that Frost claims that "the one and only reason" that Terry claims that the early chapters are apocalyptic was that they contradict the science of his day. In fact, Frost never claims that that was the "one and only reason". He does claim that "The *reason* Terry applied apocalyptic to Genesis is *not* on the basis of Preterism and not on the basis of pure exegesis (emphasis original).
Quite a bit of virtual ink was spilled in Frost's v Martin and Vaughn's dispute on the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Martin and Vaughn write: "Frost uses this section in BCS [p 254] to launch into his charge that our view introduces a contradiction in Scripture. However, he did not read our material very carefully. We agree with his point that Genesis 1 and 2 are distinct, non-contradictory accounts. We explained this in later sections that presented our view of creation: Recapitulation takes a theme or subject already introduced and expands on the important or leading feature. Recapitulation zooms in for a closer look…. The double pattern is manifested in the two accounts of creation, Genesis 1:1-2:4 and Genesis 2:5-25. (BCS p. 282)"
I looked up the passage in BCS 282 and it isn’t made very clear that Martin and Vaughn are stating that Genesis 1 and 2 aren’t contradicting each other. Nor, I think, is it fair to say that Frost attributes the idea that these two chapters contradict each other to Martin and Vaughn. Frost writes, "First to be fair, Martin and Vaughn will be quoted: 'Young Earth Creationism implies that Genesis 1 *literally* contradicts Genesis 2' (emphasis original)"
Now in fact, Martin and Vaughn are correct on this point, but Frost struggles with might and main to show that there is no contradiction. He shows (correctly) that the Hebrew allows Genesis 2.19 to be translated with the pluperfect: "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is like him (NIV).'" The problem for Frost and other apologists is that the context requires the present tense. The verse immediately prior has God saying, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make (future tense) a helper suitable for him." This shows that the making of the animals in Genesis 2.19 is a future event with respect to 2.18. But Frost's view of the Bible will not allow him to accept this: "Here, unless we are to submit an obvious contradicton (whlch we cannot allow), the beasts of the field were already made before the creation of the Man."
Terry in fact has nothing to say on the contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2, so this has been a rather lengthy bunny trail. I will lengthen it even further by examining Martin's and Vaughn's response to Frost's translation of 2 Peter 3.5-7: "For this is concealed from them willingly: that a heavens were of old and an earth by water and through water, having been held together by the word of God, through which things the then world being inundated by water perished, but the Now Heavens and The Earth by the same word are kept in store reserved for fire…"
Frost's translation says that a heavens and an earth were both held together by water and through water, a reference to Genesis, day *two*. Martin and Vaughn claim that Frost has mistranslated here, and prefer the more usual translation: "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water NIV," which would be a reference to day *three*. But in fact Frost is not alone in his translation of 2 Peter 3.5. The CSB, the Message, and the CEB all follow Frost's understanding of this verse.
Now the perishing of the world here is an interesting point, and Martin and Vaughn go to great lengths to show that the author of 2 Peter cannot mean that the physical world was destroyed. They argue that the Greek word for "word" (kosmos) has many different meanings, and here it means the covenant world. In fact, the proximity of this word for world to the heavens and earth strongly argues that in fact "world" is to be taken in the sense of the physical universe. Frost doesn’t like the implications of this either: "Since, obviously, the same moon, stars, earth, sun etc. were not destroyed in Noah's day!" Why obviously? Even Terry argues that the flood story is symbolic (for Terry, the ark is symbolic of salvation). If the whole story is symbolic, why can’t the whole universe be destroyed? Another alternative is that the author of 2 Peter *did* believe the entire universe was destroyed by water, as Edward Adams argues in The Stars Will Fall From Heaven.
Terry seems to accept the analyses of the critical scholars of his day. Concerning the Flood tales, he writes, "The writer is not careful to harmonize or reconcile his different sources, but weaves them together so as to produce a composite picture suitable for his purpose." He states that Joshua was written centuries after the events they describe. He waffles on the question of whether Daniel is pseudepigraphic, but seems to come down on the side of it being a forgery (though he doesn’t use that word, of course). He says of Daniel, "Why may not an inspired apocalypse be cast in a framework of narrative as unreal as that of the Book of Job?", incidentally showing that he does not accept the historicity of Job. Of Zechariah he writes, "The last six chapters of the Book of Zechariah are quite generally believed to be of different date and authorship from the first eight chapters" and he puts his analysis of Daniel after his analysis of Zechariah, indicating to me at least that he considers Daniel to have been written at a late date.
In common with modern critical scholars, Terry considers Daniel's four kingdoms to be Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. He interprets the ten horns of the fourth beast as ten Greek kings: five of them Ptolemaic and five of them Seleucid. Concerning the 70 weeks "The entire period extends from the proclamation of Cyrus, which authorized the restoration from Babylonian exile, unto the desolation of Jerusalem which the writer associates with Antiochus Epiphanes."
Terry's commentary on Revelation takes up a major part of this book (nearly half) and has been republished recently (2021) in a very nice edition edited by Kenneth L. Gentry and Jay Rogers. I have this book in my library and had read it before. I didn’t mind reading it again, because as is often the case, I had missed a lot on my first read-through.
Terry often sees the language of Revelation as symbolic, even when many commentators do not. For example, while most would agree that Antipas from Revelation 2.13 was a historic person, Terry believes that context and usage suggest a mystic name. Nor is the lake of fire literal: "If the beast is not a literal beast the lake of fire is not to be explained literally. The idea conveyed is rather that of complete destruction."
Terry was what today we would call a partial preterist. He believed that Jesus returned in 70 A.D., but unlike modern day full preterists, he believed in a future judgement. He believed we were living during the millennial period, the millennium signifying not a literal 1000 years but rather an indeterminate period which could last any amount of time, maybe as much as a million years! Contrary to the usual view that the New Jerusalem will descend to earth at the end of the millennium, "In point of fact this beloved city is to be understood as descending from heaven to earth (xxi, 2, 3, 10) DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF THE MILLENNIAL ERA; (emphasis original)" I hardly understand that.
Terry takes many opportunities to critique the historical interpretation of Revelation prevalent in his day. In interpreting the Euphrates vision, Terry states that "undue attention to incidental features of the larger picture tends to divert from the main purpose of the whole," and then follows this statement with a pretty incisive critique of the historical interpretation which sees this as the Turkish invasion of Constantinople.
In line with his generally symbolic interpretation of Revelation, Terry writes, "The foregoing notes have sufficiently shown how the Two Witnesses symbolize the witnessing Church of the apostolic age. As the innumerable multitude in chap. vii, 9-17, may include the sealed Israel of vii, 4-8, so these witnesses may also include the measured worshipers of xi, 1." This is a refreshing break from modern day dispensationalists who see the two witnesses as two literal fire-breathing men who will appear in the future.
Possibly Terry is best known in preterism circles for espousing the view that Babylon the Great of Revelation chapter 17 is *not* Rome, but rather Jerusalem. In Who Is This Babylon, Don K. Preston, possibly following Samuel Frost, writes "This is brand new." Preston is right in broad strokes, but seems to be wrong in details. Terry, as far as I have been able to determine, first espoused the view that Babylon was Jerusalem in Biblical Hermeneutics, first published in 1883. J. Russell Stuart beat it to him by a few years by publishing The Parousia in 1878. But Johann Gottfried Herder has them both beat by nearly a hundred years by his preterist book, Maran. Atha. Das Buch von der Zukunft des Herrn, des neuen Testaments Siegel, published in 1779. I’m surprised I don’t hear more about Herder in preterist circles, although it might be because his writing is much inferior to Terry’s.
Displaying 1 of 1 review