Fallen is Babylon!

I’m going to comment on more of Gentry’s preterist reading of Revelation.

Revelation’s main focus of attention (though not its only point) is this: God will soon judge the first-century Jews for rejecting and crucifying his Son, their Messiah. Four Views on the Book of Revelation, 46.

i) This cuts against the grain of mainstream scholarship, which thinks the Roman imperial cult lies behind much of the conflict in Revelation. A conflict between true and false worship.

ii) The only evidence Gentry cites from Revelation itself to support his contention is Rev 1:7. And he interprets that verse preteristically–as having reference, not to the Parousia, but the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD. So he’s using a controversial interpretation of a single verse to prop up a controversial claim about the “main focus of attention.”

iii) The rest of his supporting evidence comes not from Revelation, but other NT writings or OT writings. But as a rule, when you interpret a writing, it’s best to begin with the writing itself, and–if need be–work out from there.

For instance, there’s no antecedent reason to assume that Revelation is speaking to the same situation as Hebrews. So you can’t simply use Hebrews to interpret Revelation with no further ado.

iv) He says “The ‘coming with the clouds’ language is common prophetic parlance for historical divine judgments on nations” (47), yet he also says “the Second Coming is found in Mt 24:36-46” (46n25). But that drives a wedge between Mt 24:30 and Mt 24:36ff. Is Mt 24:30 (“Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory”) really describing a different event than Mt 25:31 (“31  “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne”)? What about Mt 24:31 (“31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other”)? Does that refer to the fall of Jerusalem rather than the Parousia? Where does Gentry draw the line?

The rider on the white house “bent on conquest” (Rev 6:2-3) represents the victorious Roman march toward Jerusalem to engage the Jewish war in the spring of AD 67 (53).

i) But his interpretation is far more specific than the generic language John uses. And that’s just one example. His historical correlations are arbitrary, for it’s equally possible to come up with different historical correlations. That’s what the historicist school does, as well as many dispensational date-setters.

ii) For instance, some interpreters identify the rider with the Parthians rather than the Romans. Enemies of Rome.

iii) If we do identify the rider with Rome, that would throw emphasis on Romans rather than Jews, contrary to Gentry’s preferred emphasis.

Jumping ahead in Revelation, we come to John’s visionary command to measure the temple and its worshipers (Rev 11:1-2). Again we clearly see Revelation’s focus on Israel: This “holy city” with a “temple” must be in Jerusalem” (65).

Two problems:

i) The passage goes on to say: “for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample the holy city for forty-two months.”

How does that single out Jews rather than Romans? Pagan Roman officials who persecute the faithful.

ii) Gentry himself takes the position that this passage predicts the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. But, of course, that was done by the Roman army.

iii) John may also be using temple imagery for the church.

Moving along:

v) He regards the number of the Beast as a numerological cipher for Nero. That’s certainly one possible identification. However:

a) It disregards objections to that particular identification, as well as alternative correlations. Cf. Aune, Revelation 6-16, 770-773; Beale, The Book of Revelation, 718-728.

b) Even if we think it stands for Nero, that doesn’t select for Nero rather than a Nero redivivus figure. So Gentry can’t use that for dating purposes. The Beast may be a type of Nero. 

The seven mountains obviously refer to the famous seven hills of Rome (69).

Two problems:

i) That would shift the alleged emphasis from Jews to Romans. So that undercuts his thesis.

ii) Given the pervasive use of septunarian symbolism in Revelation, the seven hills of Rome may be coincidental. Of course, it’s possible that here’s a case where reality conveniently dovetails with the numerology.

Many suppose the Babylonian prostitute represents the city of Rome because she sits on several hills. The evidence, however, suggests otherwise (74).

Yet he himself made that identification five pages back (see above)!

Revelation designates the prostitute as “Babylon the great” (17:5), that is, “the great city” (17:18; cf. 14:8; 16:19; 18:10,16,21). The first mention of “the great city” is 11:8, which indisputably points to Jerusalem, “where also their Lord was crucified” (74).

Two problems:

i) There’s a false dichotomy here, as if a reference to Jerusalem automatically exempts Rome. Yet a Roman official stationed in Jerusalem ordered the execution of Jesus. And that’s because Jerusalem was under Roman rule. Therefore, it’s not as if Jerusalem ipso facto stands in contrast to Rome.

ii) There’s also a level-confusion. It’s not a choice between the city of Rome and the city of Jerusalem. Rather, the imperial city stands for Roman dominance generally. The fall of Rome isn’t confined to the city of Rome. Rather, that has reference to the loss of Roman jurisdiction.

John’s apparent backdrop for this prostitute (17:1-6; 19:1-2) is an Old Testament text also dealing with Israel–Jeremiah 3 (74).

That fails to take into account the fact that over time, different players fill the same roles.

Of course, with the Neronian persecution currently under way (1:9; 13:5-7), Rome was stained with the blood of the saints. Yet Rome had only recently entered the persecuting ranks of God’s enemies; throughout Acts Jerusalem and the Jews were the main persecutor (75).

Several problems:

i) Many scholars think the persecution in view has reference to Domitian (late dating) rather than Nero (early dating).

ii) If Revelation is prophetic, then there’s no reason to tie it down to persecution that’s concomitant with the time of writing. It can address future persecution as well as present persecution.

iii) Indeed, the apocalyptic imagery is so generic and hyperbolic that there’s no good reason to confine it to a single period.

iv) Many scholars think Revelation was written 30 years later than Acts, at which point Roman policy had hardened against the Christians.

v) Many scholars also think Acts is, in part, an effort to ingratiate the Christian movement with Roman authorities. To demonstrate that Christians aren’t a threat to Rome. But John has a different agenda.

vi) Although 1C Jews could (and did) engage in informal persecution of Christians, the extent and degree of persecution was inherently limited, for they didn’t have the state apparatus or police powers of Rome.