What do you think?
Rate this book
Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation
Revelation is one of the most misunderstood books of the Bible. Much of this misunderstanding is due to the confusion regarding the time it was written. The dating of the book is central to understanding its purpose and audience. Dr. Gentry proves that the book was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The evidence for this conclusion is found within the pages of Scripture itself. We do not have to depend on writings from a hundred years or more after the fact to get the accurate story. God's own Word sets the record straight.
409 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1989
240 people are currently reading
569 people want to read
About the author
Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.
48 books86 followersKenneth L. Gentry, Jr. is a Reformed theologian, and an ordained minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA). He is particularly known for his support for and publication on the topics of orthodox preterism and postmillennialism in Christian eschatology, as well as for theonomy and six day creation. He holds that each of these theological distinctives are logical and theological extensions of his foundational theology, which is Calvinistic and Reformed.
Facebook pages:
Public Figure
https://www.facebook.com/KennethLGent...
He Shall Have Dominion (Book)
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...
Good Birth Ministries
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...
Facebook pages:
Public Figure
https://www.facebook.com/KennethLGent...
He Shall Have Dominion (Book)
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...
Good Birth Ministries
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews
January 12, 2016
This book was not at all what I expected, yet much better than I expected. I thought that this was a book on preterism (a theological view that ALL prophecies have already been fulfilled). Instead the book is all about the dating of the book of Revelation. This confusion is rather embarrassing on my part, as the title and abstract of the book are pretty clear. This was not a topic I was interested in, and fully expected to struggle through the reading of the book. Instead, I was enthralled and was happy to pick up the book at every opportunity.
The main point of the book is that most of the prophecies in Revelation have been fulfilled through Nero and the Jewish war that started in his reign. His arguments are convincing, and from my perspective fairly exciting. I was never happy with the Anglo-American dispensational interpretations of Revelation – especially as they seemed to think that suffering was only significant for biblical prophecy when it would take place in the USA. This semi-preterist view on the other hand is straight forward and makes a lot more sense historically and theologically. As a pan-millennialist, I am not yet convinced but am extremely sympathetic to what was presented, and will continue to mull over what was written.
The main point of the book is that most of the prophecies in Revelation have been fulfilled through Nero and the Jewish war that started in his reign. His arguments are convincing, and from my perspective fairly exciting. I was never happy with the Anglo-American dispensational interpretations of Revelation – especially as they seemed to think that suffering was only significant for biblical prophecy when it would take place in the USA. This semi-preterist view on the other hand is straight forward and makes a lot more sense historically and theologically. As a pan-millennialist, I am not yet convinced but am extremely sympathetic to what was presented, and will continue to mull over what was written.
November 19, 2012
Gentry makes a clear and convincing case for the book of Revelation to have been written in A.D. 65 or 66. If this book would attain wide readership among average American Christians, which, unfortunately I doubt it will, it could result in a radical restructuring of the average evangelical's worldview.
"My confident conviction is that a solid case for a Neronic date for Revelation can be set forth from the available evidences, both internal and external. In fact, I would lean toward a date after the outbreak of the Neronic persecution in late A.D. 64 and before the declaration of the Jewish War in early A.D. 67. A date in either A.D. 65 or early A.D. 66 would seem most suitable. My hope is that the debate will be renewed with vigor and care, for the matter is more than a merely academic or intellectual exercise; it has ramifications in the area of practical Christianity.
The resolution of the question of the dating of Revelation has far-reaching practical implications for the average Christian. As noted in our opening comments, fascination with Revelation is an extremely widespread phenomenon in American Christianity. Almost certainly this fascination will continue. The importance of Revelation for eschatological inquiry lends it an especially influential role in the development and implementation of a Christian worldview. Hence, it is of grave ethical and cultural significance in that it impacts on the Christian's view of history.
On the one hand, if Christianity's eschatological expectation is that of an imminently portending and dismally precipitous decline and extinction of Christian influence in our day, as much of current Christian literature suggests, then our Christian endeavor will be powerfully bent in one direction. And it must necessarily be turned away from the implementation of long-term Christian cultural progress and dominion. If Revelation's judgments are yet to occur and lie in our future, then we must expect and prepare for the worst.
On the other hand, if the expectation held by the Christian community is of a sure hope for progress and victory, then the focus of Christian enterprise will be of a constructive and fiture-oriented nature. Our cultural endeavor will not be in despite of our eschatology, but in light of it. In this regard, if Revelation's judgments lie in the past and punctuate the close of the old order in preparation for a divinely wrought novus ordo seclorum in which God will be engaged in “reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19) and “drawing all men” to Christ (John 12:31), then the Church can confidently seek to bring “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor.10:5). We also noted in the beginning of our inquiry that a serious confusion as to the nature and message of Revelation is partly responsible for the cultural defeatism and retreatist pietism so influential in twentieth century Christianity. There we observed that one reason for confusion as to the Church's future is due to a radical misunderstanding of the date of the writing of Revelation. If Revelation is inadvertently dated after the events it prophesies as future, the way is opened to a radical misconstruing of its message. Indeed, not only has the message been misread in such circumstances, but it has been wholly inverted, placing in our future what really lies in our past. Hence, the significance of the date of Revelation."
"My confident conviction is that a solid case for a Neronic date for Revelation can be set forth from the available evidences, both internal and external. In fact, I would lean toward a date after the outbreak of the Neronic persecution in late A.D. 64 and before the declaration of the Jewish War in early A.D. 67. A date in either A.D. 65 or early A.D. 66 would seem most suitable. My hope is that the debate will be renewed with vigor and care, for the matter is more than a merely academic or intellectual exercise; it has ramifications in the area of practical Christianity.
The resolution of the question of the dating of Revelation has far-reaching practical implications for the average Christian. As noted in our opening comments, fascination with Revelation is an extremely widespread phenomenon in American Christianity. Almost certainly this fascination will continue. The importance of Revelation for eschatological inquiry lends it an especially influential role in the development and implementation of a Christian worldview. Hence, it is of grave ethical and cultural significance in that it impacts on the Christian's view of history.
On the one hand, if Christianity's eschatological expectation is that of an imminently portending and dismally precipitous decline and extinction of Christian influence in our day, as much of current Christian literature suggests, then our Christian endeavor will be powerfully bent in one direction. And it must necessarily be turned away from the implementation of long-term Christian cultural progress and dominion. If Revelation's judgments are yet to occur and lie in our future, then we must expect and prepare for the worst.
On the other hand, if the expectation held by the Christian community is of a sure hope for progress and victory, then the focus of Christian enterprise will be of a constructive and fiture-oriented nature. Our cultural endeavor will not be in despite of our eschatology, but in light of it. In this regard, if Revelation's judgments lie in the past and punctuate the close of the old order in preparation for a divinely wrought novus ordo seclorum in which God will be engaged in “reconciling the world to Himself” (2 Cor. 5:19) and “drawing all men” to Christ (John 12:31), then the Church can confidently seek to bring “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor.10:5). We also noted in the beginning of our inquiry that a serious confusion as to the nature and message of Revelation is partly responsible for the cultural defeatism and retreatist pietism so influential in twentieth century Christianity. There we observed that one reason for confusion as to the Church's future is due to a radical misunderstanding of the date of the writing of Revelation. If Revelation is inadvertently dated after the events it prophesies as future, the way is opened to a radical misconstruing of its message. Indeed, not only has the message been misread in such circumstances, but it has been wholly inverted, placing in our future what really lies in our past. Hence, the significance of the date of Revelation."
December 10, 2022
Well written book arguing that Revelation was written before AD 70. Well researched, many good arguments and helpful perspectives. He does generally well in refuting many arguments for later dates. Some of his arguments seem to follow the "brute force" approach, e.g. his argument about Irenaeus' text which is basically, "Iranaeus isn't fully reliable in historical statements; also, the transmission of the text to us is suspect; also, he probably didn't mean what it seems like he meant and here's a list of theologians who agree with me; also,
Another example is where he lists verses about the jews being God's enemies - he has an impressive list of dozens of verses, and acts as if this tour de force proves that Jews are the main enemies of God also in Revelation. Other specious arguments include, "Even Iranaeus didn't know who 666 was, which proves that it was a well-hidden code that only John's contemporaries could understand", "God often mentioned in conjunction with clouds when speaking of his judgment, so that must be what Jesus' 'coming with the clouds' must be in Revelation" (conveniently failing to mention the non-judgment mention of God in/on clouds), and "it is obvious that we must count Roman emperors in this specific way, therefore others who have studied Revelation and Roman history and come to different conclusions are obviously wrong." In all he often argues well, but he overstates the evidence, fails to deal with significant counterarguments, and generally presents likelihoods as certainties, weak arguments as strong ones, and his conclusion as obvious to anyone who takes more than a cursory look.
But I don't want to detract from the usefulness of this book - it is generally sound in its arguments, presents the case logically and well, and if read with a critical eye by someone who knows a little Roman history, it is very helpful. But to the uncritical reader it will be easy to be overwhelmed more by the quantity of his arguments and references to ancient sources than their quality.
Another example is where he lists verses about the jews being God's enemies - he has an impressive list of dozens of verses, and acts as if this tour de force proves that Jews are the main enemies of God also in Revelation. Other specious arguments include, "Even Iranaeus didn't know who 666 was, which proves that it was a well-hidden code that only John's contemporaries could understand", "God often mentioned in conjunction with clouds when speaking of his judgment, so that must be what Jesus' 'coming with the clouds' must be in Revelation" (conveniently failing to mention the non-judgment mention of God in/on clouds), and "it is obvious that we must count Roman emperors in this specific way, therefore others who have studied Revelation and Roman history and come to different conclusions are obviously wrong." In all he often argues well, but he overstates the evidence, fails to deal with significant counterarguments, and generally presents likelihoods as certainties, weak arguments as strong ones, and his conclusion as obvious to anyone who takes more than a cursory look.
But I don't want to detract from the usefulness of this book - it is generally sound in its arguments, presents the case logically and well, and if read with a critical eye by someone who knows a little Roman history, it is very helpful. But to the uncritical reader it will be easy to be overwhelmed more by the quantity of his arguments and references to ancient sources than their quality.
June 3, 2016
I will not lie. The decidedly more hopeful worldview of partial preterism is extremely appealing to me. Growing up under my grandfather's classic dispensational preaching (of the hell, fire, and brimstone variety) left me with a lot of fear concerning the eschaton. However hopeful preterism is does not make it true, though. That is why I was happy to find Gentry's early date advocacy for the Revelation well-researched and well-founded.
Although preterism does not necessarily follow from establishment of an early date, the use of internal evidence for an early date makes a strong case for preterism in and of itself. Gentry presents the "self-witness" of Revelation convincingly, covering in detail almost every correlation between the prophecies and their first century fulfillment. He addresses the problems and rebuttals against the self-witness thoroughly. My only issue with this section of the book is that he completely ignores the two witnesses.
I find the weakest part of the book to be the portion dealing with external evidences. For example, most late date advocates must rely almost solely on the testimony of Iraneaus to support their position. The most Gentry can do is cast doubt on Iraneaus as a reliable source. I feel the shadow he casts with this doubt is long, though not long or dark enough to make the controversy surrounding Iraneaus conclusive either way.
Ultimately, I think Gentry is successful in making a case for an early date. At the very least, I think late date advocates must admit that either position is not entirely conclusive.
Am I ready to call myself a preterist, partial or evangelical? Not quite. Will definitely require more reading to cover all aspects of the position before I can commit.
Although preterism does not necessarily follow from establishment of an early date, the use of internal evidence for an early date makes a strong case for preterism in and of itself. Gentry presents the "self-witness" of Revelation convincingly, covering in detail almost every correlation between the prophecies and their first century fulfillment. He addresses the problems and rebuttals against the self-witness thoroughly. My only issue with this section of the book is that he completely ignores the two witnesses.
I find the weakest part of the book to be the portion dealing with external evidences. For example, most late date advocates must rely almost solely on the testimony of Iraneaus to support their position. The most Gentry can do is cast doubt on Iraneaus as a reliable source. I feel the shadow he casts with this doubt is long, though not long or dark enough to make the controversy surrounding Iraneaus conclusive either way.
Ultimately, I think Gentry is successful in making a case for an early date. At the very least, I think late date advocates must admit that either position is not entirely conclusive.
Am I ready to call myself a preterist, partial or evangelical? Not quite. Will definitely require more reading to cover all aspects of the position before I can commit.
October 30, 2020
This is a book about when the book of Revelation was written. I started preaching through Revelation over a year ago, and it would have been just terrific to have read Gentry a long time ago, certainly before I started my Apocalyptic prep. Woe, woe, woe to me.
The title of Gentry's book is also the answer to the question. Gentry aims all of his literary, historical, and interpretive guns at a before AD 70 date. As it turns out, his arguments misfired for me. I don't mean that in the popularly subjective way; I can be persuaded by evidence. I found the evidence wanting. In brief:
He assumes throughout his book that Revelation is about how the church replaces Israel. This governs his observations. This makes some conclusions for him. That's not the same as an argument.
He defends himself for dozens of pages before making his actual arguments. That's at least true in the "third" edition I have. He begins with a Preface in which he replies to numerous critics on their numerous disagreements. It's actually quite unenjoyable. "Me thinks thou protests too much."
He also seizes humility in other authors as proof that he could be right. That is insufferable, if not actually unfair reading. While he admits in many places that there is evidence on both sides, he takes others making the same admission as reinforcement of his ideas.
I really do wish I had read this many years ago. I also wish I had more time to answer why I'm still unconvinced about his answers (and assumptions). But the book is too convenient, too affirming-the-consequent, and too hopeful in (possible) loopholes that (perhaps could be used to) make his point.
The title of Gentry's book is also the answer to the question. Gentry aims all of his literary, historical, and interpretive guns at a before AD 70 date. As it turns out, his arguments misfired for me. I don't mean that in the popularly subjective way; I can be persuaded by evidence. I found the evidence wanting. In brief:
He assumes throughout his book that Revelation is about how the church replaces Israel. This governs his observations. This makes some conclusions for him. That's not the same as an argument.
He defends himself for dozens of pages before making his actual arguments. That's at least true in the "third" edition I have. He begins with a Preface in which he replies to numerous critics on their numerous disagreements. It's actually quite unenjoyable. "Me thinks thou protests too much."
He also seizes humility in other authors as proof that he could be right. That is insufferable, if not actually unfair reading. While he admits in many places that there is evidence on both sides, he takes others making the same admission as reinforcement of his ideas.
I really do wish I had read this many years ago. I also wish I had more time to answer why I'm still unconvinced about his answers (and assumptions). But the book is too convenient, too affirming-the-consequent, and too hopeful in (possible) loopholes that (perhaps could be used to) make his point.
June 10, 2020
No matter what you believe about eschatology (end-times) this book is packed with historical information from the writings of Josephus, the Gospels, and presents a scholarly case for the dating of Revelation. Foundational!
April 15, 2024
This is perhaps the most comprehensive work when it comes to the dating of the Book of Revelation in the Bible. The common understanding is that it was written around 95 AD, but the author is convinced that this is not the case, and that the writing took place somewhere between 64 and 70 AD. Kenneth Gentry goes into detail in the most necessary areas and proves i.a. how the later date doesn't measure up, how an earlier dating is the most reliable and how the time between the years 64 and 70 perfectly fits with the content of the Book of Revelation, also in terms of internal evidence.
The author also brings out several other sources, old and new, and how even those who stand for a later date (95 AD) casts doubt on some of their own claims and evidences. Kenneth Gentry does a thorough job here, and the book has mostly been an interesting affair. The long foreword was a bit over the edge and a more complicated side of the book, and should have been an afterword instead, as it addresses counter-arguments he has received for previous editions of the book. For a new reader, I think the foreword will be uninteresting until you have read the book and familiarized yourself with the material. So, if you are a new reader, I'll recommend you to read the foreword after reading the rest of the book.
Kenneth Gentry nonetheless masterfully goes into relevant places in the Book of Revelation and manages to weave Emperor Nero into the details of Bibleverses that has to do with the number 666, and the time periods of 42 months mentioned in the Book of Revelation he makes fit like a hand into a glove to the reign of Emperor Nero, which really proves the credibility of the prophetic word. This and more gives you good and necessary insight, and is an important piece of work for the time we live in. Really inspiring, but sometimes a bit complicated.
The author also brings out several other sources, old and new, and how even those who stand for a later date (95 AD) casts doubt on some of their own claims and evidences. Kenneth Gentry does a thorough job here, and the book has mostly been an interesting affair. The long foreword was a bit over the edge and a more complicated side of the book, and should have been an afterword instead, as it addresses counter-arguments he has received for previous editions of the book. For a new reader, I think the foreword will be uninteresting until you have read the book and familiarized yourself with the material. So, if you are a new reader, I'll recommend you to read the foreword after reading the rest of the book.
Kenneth Gentry nonetheless masterfully goes into relevant places in the Book of Revelation and manages to weave Emperor Nero into the details of Bibleverses that has to do with the number 666, and the time periods of 42 months mentioned in the Book of Revelation he makes fit like a hand into a glove to the reign of Emperor Nero, which really proves the credibility of the prophetic word. This and more gives you good and necessary insight, and is an important piece of work for the time we live in. Really inspiring, but sometimes a bit complicated.
April 14, 2025
Convinced of the pre-AD70 date for Revelation now. Doesn’t change my view of what the book means for me and Christians worldwide, but it definitely changed the way I view the literal-historical meaning of the book for the Christians of the time.
Dr. Gentry provides plenty of evidence from sources outside of the Bible and internal-scriptural sources as well. He then dismantles any questions that may arise or contrasting views with the same evidence.
Dr. Gentry also closes the book with how it applies to us today, and how incorrectly reading Revelation, and consequently, our eschatology, can influence our “worldview” (even though I don’t like that term). Don’t be doom and gloom about the world, Jesus is King!
Dr. Gentry provides plenty of evidence from sources outside of the Bible and internal-scriptural sources as well. He then dismantles any questions that may arise or contrasting views with the same evidence.
Dr. Gentry also closes the book with how it applies to us today, and how incorrectly reading Revelation, and consequently, our eschatology, can influence our “worldview” (even though I don’t like that term). Don’t be doom and gloom about the world, Jesus is King!
November 30, 2025
Left no stone unturned with the debate of the date of Revelation’s composition. With that being said, much of the content went over my head. Gentry utilizes Koine grammar and early church fathers in his arguments for the early dating of Revelation. My favorite section was the “Internal Witness”. His argues that the words of Scripture should take precedence over church fathers that may have erred in their writings.
Overall, I definitely recommend reading Before Jerusalem Fell, and maybe even revisiting this book down the road.
Overall, I definitely recommend reading Before Jerusalem Fell, and maybe even revisiting this book down the road.
October 2, 2022
Fabulous!! Even if you don’t accept some of his exegetical conclusions about the Revelation, not really care about the date the book was written, the incredible wealth of historical information about 1st Century Christianity and the Roman Empire makes this book a keeper!
September 1, 2020
Overall the book was good. I appreciate all the study and research the author put into the work. The book made me considered facts I had never even thought about before. However, the book is not for the faint-hearted or layman. This work was written as a doctoral dissertation and not for the common man. Therefore, at times it was a difficult read.
Moreover, it felt like the author spent more time refuting objections than presenting positive arguments for his thesis. He also tended to be repetitive in his arguments providing more quotes than were needed to make his point. I believe he could have referenced those of like mind and then provided a footnote for more detail in lieu of providing quote after quote. Therefore, reading the book felt tedious at times.
In addition, I believe the editor should have made the preface for the new addition an appendix rather than placing it at the front of the book. I recommend the reader read it after reading the original work and not before. I believe doing so would assist the reader better in the understanding of the context of the arguments he makes in the new addition preface.
Moreover, it felt like the author spent more time refuting objections than presenting positive arguments for his thesis. He also tended to be repetitive in his arguments providing more quotes than were needed to make his point. I believe he could have referenced those of like mind and then provided a footnote for more detail in lieu of providing quote after quote. Therefore, reading the book felt tedious at times.
In addition, I believe the editor should have made the preface for the new addition an appendix rather than placing it at the front of the book. I recommend the reader read it after reading the original work and not before. I believe doing so would assist the reader better in the understanding of the context of the arguments he makes in the new addition preface.
Read
August 4, 2011A good book if not a great one. Changed my mind about the dating of the N.T. on a whole towards an earlier dating and made me read John A. T Robinson's - 'Redating the New Testament.'
(Download free here: richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-tes...)
Don't be misled this book covers a TON beyond the date of Revelation! It includes a N.T. times understanding of the Beast of Revelation, the symbology, ties to O.T. types and scriptures, etc.
Whether you agree or disagree, you cannot afford to be ignorant of the arguments and proofs in this book.
(Download free here: richardwaynegarganta.com/redating-tes...)
Don't be misled this book covers a TON beyond the date of Revelation! It includes a N.T. times understanding of the Beast of Revelation, the symbology, ties to O.T. types and scriptures, etc.
Whether you agree or disagree, you cannot afford to be ignorant of the arguments and proofs in this book.
August 28, 2023
Kenneth Gentry provides an excellent scholarly argument for what has become a minority opinion amongst biblical scholars in the last century regarding the date John wrote Revelation. Although openly admitting it is a minority view, Gentry does provide a list of dozens of scholars, including the great historian Philip Schaff, who argue for an early date for Revelation. While Gentry argues that Revelation was written around 66 AD based on both internal and external, he argues internal evidence should be emphasized more than external since that which is internal is inspired by God. He argues for the early date by appealing to internal evidence such as the theme of Revelation, the temporary expectation of the author, the identity of the sixth king, the integrity of the temple, the role of Nero, Jewish and Christian relations, and the looming Jewish war. He also surveys the external evidence such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria to show that there exists strong evidence for an early date and at best, inconclusive evidence for a late date.
It should be noted that this should not be the first book one reads to examine this topic as this work is extremely technical and exhaustive in certain areas. It is vital to have a strong background in church history in general and also toward the time period of the 60s and 90s AD.
Positives:
1. The author never disparages adherents of the late date camp, which tends to be common vice versa. He argues that the late date position must be seriously considered as many brilliant scholars land in that camp.
2. The author includes an average of roughly 80 footnotes per chapter. A large majority of these sources are prime sources including Josephus, Taciticus, Seutonius, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertulliam, etc.
3. The author includes a section responding to common arguments for the late date such as the role of emperor worship, the state of the seven churches, and the nature of the persecution of Christians.
4. The author provides direct historical evidence for commonly challenged claims from the early date position. For example, he includes a prime source which includes the name of Caesar Nero written in Hebrew which dates to the late 60s AD that would equal 666 in the Hebrew number system.
Negatives:
1. The author could have provided longer explanations for the arguments of the opposing side. The width of his arguments for his position were much longer than his description of the other side. While this is expected in any critical work, Gentry's position would have benefited by lengthening this section
2. The author often presents arguments for an early date which he rejects after presenting them. While he is clear in presenting why he believes these arguments are inadequate, this organization can sometimes be confusing.
It should be noted that this should not be the first book one reads to examine this topic as this work is extremely technical and exhaustive in certain areas. It is vital to have a strong background in church history in general and also toward the time period of the 60s and 90s AD.
Positives:
1. The author never disparages adherents of the late date camp, which tends to be common vice versa. He argues that the late date position must be seriously considered as many brilliant scholars land in that camp.
2. The author includes an average of roughly 80 footnotes per chapter. A large majority of these sources are prime sources including Josephus, Taciticus, Seutonius, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertulliam, etc.
3. The author includes a section responding to common arguments for the late date such as the role of emperor worship, the state of the seven churches, and the nature of the persecution of Christians.
4. The author provides direct historical evidence for commonly challenged claims from the early date position. For example, he includes a prime source which includes the name of Caesar Nero written in Hebrew which dates to the late 60s AD that would equal 666 in the Hebrew number system.
Negatives:
1. The author could have provided longer explanations for the arguments of the opposing side. The width of his arguments for his position were much longer than his description of the other side. While this is expected in any critical work, Gentry's position would have benefited by lengthening this section
2. The author often presents arguments for an early date which he rejects after presenting them. While he is clear in presenting why he believes these arguments are inadequate, this organization can sometimes be confusing.
October 13, 2019
Stop reading the Bible like a Newspaper!
When it comes to the book of Revelation and it's date of composition, this book is the cat's meow. It has been incredibly helpful to me.
I really like Gentry. In this book he is incredibly thorough, thoughtful, and deals thoroughly with his detractors and with the late date scholarly "consensus". What a relief to learn all these things and to make sense of John's apocalyptic work that has puzzled me all my life.
Like many who have grown up in evangelicalism, I had a strong diet of dispensationalism via "left-behind"ism and non-scholarly surface readings of Revelation. I used to anticipate the "rapture", the anti-Christ, and a future 7 year tribulation period. But the really hard questions all remained. Not anymore.
It's kind of ironic... even though I am now totally convinced of an early date of Revelation, that is not the primary thing that I took away from this book. What really hit home to me, is how much Revelation is a very specific genre (judicial apocalypse), and that it is a book STEEPED in Old Testament language and imagery, which John naturally was immersed in.
The simple fact of the matter is that Revelation MUST be understood within it's context, or you will just not understand it very deeply (beyond the more elementary themes).
And this is no small matter. Because it speaks to issues far beyond the dating... It speaks to how we read the Bible, understand history, and understand how the first Christians themselves saw their position in prophetic history.
Moreover, this way of reading Revelation (in the context of orthodox preterism that this early dating proof book buttresses) makes the rest of the New Testament (particularly the words and actions of Christ) SO much more interesting and coherent/consistent.
There is a LOT of nuance going on in the New Testament, and it is because of hard-working authors like Gentry that we are able now to understand and appreciate it.
As a good example, I just watched a documentary on the destruction of Jerusalem. Some of the "experts" being interviewed suggested that the early church was ultimately wrong to expect the "cloud-coming" of Christ. How I wanted to tell those guests to read Dr Gentry's book! Like other evangelicals, I used to take Christ much too literally when he said "You will see the Son of Man standing at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven"...
Oh how I feel so silly now...
Please do yourself a favor and read this book. We no longer have an excuse for being so ridiculous.
When it comes to the book of Revelation and it's date of composition, this book is the cat's meow. It has been incredibly helpful to me.
I really like Gentry. In this book he is incredibly thorough, thoughtful, and deals thoroughly with his detractors and with the late date scholarly "consensus". What a relief to learn all these things and to make sense of John's apocalyptic work that has puzzled me all my life.
Like many who have grown up in evangelicalism, I had a strong diet of dispensationalism via "left-behind"ism and non-scholarly surface readings of Revelation. I used to anticipate the "rapture", the anti-Christ, and a future 7 year tribulation period. But the really hard questions all remained. Not anymore.
It's kind of ironic... even though I am now totally convinced of an early date of Revelation, that is not the primary thing that I took away from this book. What really hit home to me, is how much Revelation is a very specific genre (judicial apocalypse), and that it is a book STEEPED in Old Testament language and imagery, which John naturally was immersed in.
The simple fact of the matter is that Revelation MUST be understood within it's context, or you will just not understand it very deeply (beyond the more elementary themes).
And this is no small matter. Because it speaks to issues far beyond the dating... It speaks to how we read the Bible, understand history, and understand how the first Christians themselves saw their position in prophetic history.
Moreover, this way of reading Revelation (in the context of orthodox preterism that this early dating proof book buttresses) makes the rest of the New Testament (particularly the words and actions of Christ) SO much more interesting and coherent/consistent.
There is a LOT of nuance going on in the New Testament, and it is because of hard-working authors like Gentry that we are able now to understand and appreciate it.
As a good example, I just watched a documentary on the destruction of Jerusalem. Some of the "experts" being interviewed suggested that the early church was ultimately wrong to expect the "cloud-coming" of Christ. How I wanted to tell those guests to read Dr Gentry's book! Like other evangelicals, I used to take Christ much too literally when he said "You will see the Son of Man standing at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven"...
Oh how I feel so silly now...
Please do yourself a favor and read this book. We no longer have an excuse for being so ridiculous.
September 10, 2021
This book is an attempt to teach that the Book of Revelation was written before 70 AD. The ONLY reason Gentry is doing so is because he is a stiff-necked anti-Dispensationalist who butchers the Book of Revelation in order to try and make it fit into his Amillennial eschatological view.
This was a terribly difficult book to read because it was no less heretical, dishonest and baseless than is anything you get on Revelation put out by the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) or Mary Baker Eddy for that matter.
The evidence for a later writing (closer to 100 AD) of Revelation by John the apostle is overwhelming and any "debate" is right up there with debating a Flat Earther. I won't debate with either, more than to point such people to the evidence.
Geocentricity versus Heliocentricity is, according to Einstein and others of sound scientific mind, a matter of perspective. But that the earth is a sphere and the sun is a sphere and one orbits around the other is irrefutable according to any reasonable judgment of the evidence. And so it is with the Book of Revelation.
There is some room for debate about what exactly certain things in Revelation actually mean or refer to. I believe the Whore of Relevation 17 & 18 is the Vatican cult. You may disagree. Fine. But the evidence for the age of the Book is not, if you accept the evidence as it stands.
Whether it is the internal evidence, the contemporary testimony of early Christians, the fact no evidence (no papyrus scraps) or early quotations before 100 AD of Revelation exist, etc., is overwhelmingly in favor of a later date for Revelation and definitely sometime beyond 70 AD.
And the Bible is a Dispensational Book. And that really is what the debate is about.
This was a terribly difficult book to read because it was no less heretical, dishonest and baseless than is anything you get on Revelation put out by the Watchtower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) or Mary Baker Eddy for that matter.
The evidence for a later writing (closer to 100 AD) of Revelation by John the apostle is overwhelming and any "debate" is right up there with debating a Flat Earther. I won't debate with either, more than to point such people to the evidence.
Geocentricity versus Heliocentricity is, according to Einstein and others of sound scientific mind, a matter of perspective. But that the earth is a sphere and the sun is a sphere and one orbits around the other is irrefutable according to any reasonable judgment of the evidence. And so it is with the Book of Revelation.
There is some room for debate about what exactly certain things in Revelation actually mean or refer to. I believe the Whore of Relevation 17 & 18 is the Vatican cult. You may disagree. Fine. But the evidence for the age of the Book is not, if you accept the evidence as it stands.
Whether it is the internal evidence, the contemporary testimony of early Christians, the fact no evidence (no papyrus scraps) or early quotations before 100 AD of Revelation exist, etc., is overwhelmingly in favor of a later date for Revelation and definitely sometime beyond 70 AD.
And the Bible is a Dispensational Book. And that really is what the debate is about.
May 23, 2024
I was turned on to this work by RC Sproul's own brilliant if not particularly deep work on the topic ("The Last Days According to Jesus"). If this is your first time wading into the waters of partial preterism, read that book first and then come back to this if you want a more in-depth treatment of why The Revelation should be dated earlier than is often touted, and how the situation around Nero ties in very closely to the motif of the Beast.
My only minor complaint is that I wanted more: Yes, even in a 350-page work, I can want more. I know it wasn't the main focus of the book, but I would have loved a treatment that clues us in to some of the other confusing imagery in the book, such as the horsemen, the two witnesses, and Armageddon. How much of Revelation does Gentry think is still future, if any?
My only minor complaint is that I wanted more: Yes, even in a 350-page work, I can want more. I know it wasn't the main focus of the book, but I would have loved a treatment that clues us in to some of the other confusing imagery in the book, such as the horsemen, the two witnesses, and Armageddon. How much of Revelation does Gentry think is still future, if any?
February 7, 2023
Convincing Effort… But…
This book is one of the most thoroughly researched Christian eschatological works I have ever read. The author considers the dating of the book of Revelation seemingly from every angle, external and internal evidence, negative reviews, etc and gives reasonable explanations as to why his view is superior. Based on this work, I personally am convinced the book of Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalm in 70 A.D. Consequently this is yet another reason to not take dispensational end time speculations seriously. However, as for a practical application of the message of Revelation to the modern context, I still defer to the historical-symbolic Amillenial work of G. K. Beale, the shorter book of Revelation commentary.
This book is one of the most thoroughly researched Christian eschatological works I have ever read. The author considers the dating of the book of Revelation seemingly from every angle, external and internal evidence, negative reviews, etc and gives reasonable explanations as to why his view is superior. Based on this work, I personally am convinced the book of Revelation was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalm in 70 A.D. Consequently this is yet another reason to not take dispensational end time speculations seriously. However, as for a practical application of the message of Revelation to the modern context, I still defer to the historical-symbolic Amillenial work of G. K. Beale, the shorter book of Revelation commentary.
March 16, 2025
The Dispensationalist argument insists that the late date (AD 90-95) during the reign of Domitian is the undeniable timeframe for the writing of Revelation. The late date proves, they say, the Preterist viewpoint has no validity since Revelation must have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem and the razing of the Temple. Gentry’s Before Jerusalem Fell offers historical, grammatical, and hermeneutical arguments (both internal to the Bible and external by outside sources) that offer more than enough evidence for an early dating of the writing. A timeframe predating the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Well written and researched, this book is a must for anyone truly interested in studying Revelation.
March 10, 2019
Mr. Gentry is an astute, humble, scholarly, fair and level-headed theologian, and his work here is an excellent showcase of that. I greatly enjoyed and learned a lot from Before Jerusalem Fell. An extremely convincing set of arguments for the early dating (mid-60's A.D.) for the writing of the book of Revelation, this is an important and comprehensive volume that would benefit anybody with a willingness to expand and/or change his or her stance on a theological and historical issue with major eschatological implications. It was incredibly well-researched and very thoroughly presented. An impressive book by Kenneth Gentry, and I highly recommend it.
March 16, 2019
Gentry's book is important in that it is the best defense of the pre-A.D. 70 dating of the book of Revelation. His argument, however, is couched in dominionist and anti-Semitic language (God was punishing the Jews for killing Jesus, violating the covenant, etc). Also the book's argument isn't very strong.
March 4, 2020
I loved reading this book. Such strong and overwhelming evidences for the early dating of Revelation. This is a book that can not be left out when discussing and interpreting the last book of the Bible.
January 27, 2022
It's never too late
A fair and balanced research summary. Why is this information kept hidden from the average Christians? I've wasted a significant portion of my life focused on the wrong things.
A fair and balanced research summary. Why is this information kept hidden from the average Christians? I've wasted a significant portion of my life focused on the wrong things.
July 26, 2025
Honestly, every pastor or Bible teacher should read this with an open mind. Revelation truly was written before 70 AD and is about the horrors of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. Parts of the book were way too scholarly for me to grasp, hence pastors should read it! Great book!
August 12, 2025
I am certain this would sway a lot of people in the Dispensationalist circles I grow up and am still in. For me at least it’s a solid, extremely fairly written a) refutation of the traditional dating of Revelation (during Domitian‘s reign) and b) defense for a dating during Nero’s reign around 65/66 AD.
The defense gains its greatest appeal through the use of basic hermeneutical principles we already apply to all other texts of the Bible. Gentry makes a good case that somehow through our futurist lens we leave all common sense when exegeting the text – leaving the entire principle of exegesis altogether. The text must be read, as we read all others, primarily as written by the original author to its original audience at its original time. I believe most readers will be astonished by just how many important details they have overlooked and how well the case for partial preterism can actually be made.
All Scriptural argumentation aside, the external case for the dating of Revelation doesn’t lack strength and still makes up a good portion of the book. Gentry doesn’t shy away from dealing with the strongest arguments, something I commonly discovered throughout this book. While clearly apologetic, of course – it is a dissertation and as such it would be without merit were it not written so fairly, rather than ignoring the opposite view‘s greatest and strongest arguments. Gentry dismantles or at least weakens them one by one before making his case.
A great, fascinating read that I will surely recommend to many. I doubt a more comprehensive case for an early dating of Revelation has been made elsewhere; this book is surely sufficient.
The defense gains its greatest appeal through the use of basic hermeneutical principles we already apply to all other texts of the Bible. Gentry makes a good case that somehow through our futurist lens we leave all common sense when exegeting the text – leaving the entire principle of exegesis altogether. The text must be read, as we read all others, primarily as written by the original author to its original audience at its original time. I believe most readers will be astonished by just how many important details they have overlooked and how well the case for partial preterism can actually be made.
All Scriptural argumentation aside, the external case for the dating of Revelation doesn’t lack strength and still makes up a good portion of the book. Gentry doesn’t shy away from dealing with the strongest arguments, something I commonly discovered throughout this book. While clearly apologetic, of course – it is a dissertation and as such it would be without merit were it not written so fairly, rather than ignoring the opposite view‘s greatest and strongest arguments. Gentry dismantles or at least weakens them one by one before making his case.
A great, fascinating read that I will surely recommend to many. I doubt a more comprehensive case for an early dating of Revelation has been made elsewhere; this book is surely sufficient.
September 6, 2019
I wish I could give this book a TEN, I would do so. EXCELLENT book.
January 4, 2021
Essential preterist material
February 13, 2022
Detailed and well-argued. Thoroughly enjoyed and understand the subject much better.
March 14, 2024
Very thorough argument for Revelation being written prior to 70AD.
April 3, 2024
Very helpful. Would highly recommend for post-mil newbies.
October 2, 2024
Very thorough book arguing for a pre 70A.D. date for Revelation. Convincing.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 45 reviews