An Important New Commentary on the Book of Revelation

Here in my office I count seventeen large commentary sets1 that include the book of Revelation, and also thirty-nine standalone commentaries2 on Revelation (four of which are two-volume works and two of which are three-volume3 works). You would think that fifty-nine commentaries is more than enough, and that the last thing I need is number sixty. Nevertheless, you would be mistaken. There was need for the new two-volume Revelation commentary by Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., which finally appeared in print in 2024, and I for one welcome its long-awaited arrival.

The full title of Dr. Gentry’s commentary is The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation,4 which points to the theme that drives this work of Christian scholarship forward. The commentary is a valuable work in many respects, especially in light of the approach it takes with its subject. Dr. Gentry is a strong proponent of the partial preterist interpretation of Revelation, which holds that the bulk of the book refers to events that occurred in the first century A.D.

Only a few of the commentaries on my shelves adopt the partial preterist perspective, and some are quite dated (e.g., Moses Stuart’s exposition was published in 1845).5 In the nature of the case, preterism (by which I mean partial preterism for the remainder of this discussion) leverages historic research, meaning that advances in our knowledge of that first-century-A.D. time period can further strengthen the foundation for commentaries written from that perspective—that is, if one mines the data carefully enough. Dr. Gentry’s research does rise to that level of diligence.

The Importance of Paying Your Dues

One key indicator of any scholar’s fitness for such a formidable task is a willingness to work one’s way up to a full-scale two-volume commentary, rather than presumptuously seizing the brass ring at the outset of one’s career as a published theologian. Dr. Gentry’s earlier volumes on Revelation and on general eschatology paved the way toward the present volume, representing his commitment to paying his dues and earning the respect of his peers and colleagues, including those who do not agree with his thesis.

Dr. Gentry’s two-volume commentary represents the culmination of work extending at least as far back as his 1989 book, The Beast of Revelation.6 Dr. Gentry’s survey of postmillennial theology, He Shall Have Dominion,7 first appeared in 1992, followed by Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation8 in 1998. This last volume gives comprehensive consideration to the evidence for the early dating of the Apocalypse, which provides important prerequisites for the present work, again being indicative of Dr. Gentry’s diligence in assembling the strongest case for his position. Then two shorter predecessors to this commentary appeared in print: The Book of Revelation Made Easy9 from 2008 and Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues10 from 2009.

Multiple lectures by Dr. Gentry on this topic have appeared in video format as well, and he even co-edited an earlier scholar’s preterist commentary on Revelation (that of Milton S. Terry).11 The present volumes are the well-earned capstone of Dr. Gentry’s labors on behalf of representing this particular approach to our understanding of John’s Apocalypse.

Earning the Respect of Opposing Scholars

Like the founder of the Chalcedon Foundation, Dr. Rousas John Rushdoony, I myself do not hold to the preterist interpretation of Revelation that Dr. Gentry puts forward. I consider myself a sympathetic critic of that approach. It was therefore significant, and indicative of Dr. Gentry’s academic integrity, that he asked a magazine editor to seek out a scholar hostile to his views to write the first book review for his 1989 book, The Beast of Revelation. Many scholars prefer to have softballs thrown at them, with book reviews being promotional puff pieces in disguise. Not so Dr. Gentry.

I happened to be the person selected to prepare that first critical review,12 and I am again in a similar position today in commending these volumes to our readership. This “reaching across the aisle” is done in the same spirit that Dr. Rushdoony himself embodied in respect to preterist research on the book of Revelation. While he didn’t agree with the position, he proactively supported and subsidized research favoring the position. The reason for this is worth taking the time to understand.

For the fact of the matter is that the meaning of Revelation remains an open question, and only fools rush in to assert otherwise. Although Dr. Rushdoony had written his own commentary on Revelation in 1970,13 he knew that Christian scholarship could only advance when each of the opposing positions were allowed to put forward their best reasoning, scholarship, and research. This was not merely a question of being collegial (which Christian charity would demand in any case) but because advancing our knowledge of Revelation was important. Dr. Rushdoony could therefore be close friends with someone who wrote a historicist commentary on Revelation (Dr. Francis Nigel Lee) and with those who adopted a preterist outlook, although he himself was an idealist (as am I).14

It was Warfield who best captured the reason for such debates to advance (by each side putting its best foot forward). While the following quote from him was birthed in a very different context, its emphasis should be a universal one among all Berean Christians:

It is inevitable, however, that the controversy should continue to “rage” until it is fought to a finish. The question at issue between the parties to it is to [a] fundamental question…  and it is well that it should not be allowed to pass out of public sight so long as there is a single thing which is even plausible remaining to be said upon either side.15

Warfield indicated that when such an important debate stalls out, for whatever reason, we collectively become the “losers” in the trade, and the church’s intellectual artillery becomes, to that extent, impoverished.

Reaching Farther to Expand Biblical Knowledge

In terms of Warfield’s principle of open exchange in Christian scholarship,
Dr. Rushdoony recognized important books, and important work, and was wise enough to support such efforts (even financially) even if those researchers diverged from his own position.16 The Kingdom advances when Biblical knowledge advances, but it stumbles when tribalism shuts down legitimate inquiry (the primary means by which we may gain further light upon the scriptures).

The Chalcedon Foundation therefore followed its founder’s example in collaborating with Tolle Lege Press in co-publishing this major preterist work by a noted postmillennial scholar. A crabbed, provincial, us-versus-them outlook simply will not lend itself to the extension of Christ’s kingdom in the domain of biblical scholarship. Rather, each respective position must continue along the path Warfield described above. Cherry-picking the weakest proponents of a position to target for cheap critique is a form of academic fraud, thereby painting a false picture of the current state of debate.

Among such false impressions are those floated by overzealous advocates who attempt to convince others that “there is no debate,” that the question is closed. If Christian scholars were to all take that approach, scholarship would stall out. We are ill-served by aggressive marketing campaigns for a given position, but when scholars take up the example of Dr. Gentry (who preferred that a hostile critic review his earlier book) we will make progress. We thereby collectively advance the ball down the field.

At some point in the future, we’ll either end up rejoicing that preterism was correct, or we’ll end up rejoicing that idealism or historicism was correct while being glad that we arrived at that position while having the strongest possible preterist case in our hands when making the comparisons. You cannot have legitimate confidence in one side or the other unless all conservatively Biblical approaches have offered their strongest research to the world. This is why we need works like this one, and that need stems from the fact that either (1) Dr. Gentry’s position is correct, or (2) we cannot have confidence in the correct position unless Dr. Gentry’s research is factored into the mix. It takes iron to sharpen iron, but softening up the loyal opposition’s iron into mush means that your own iron won’t be sharpened at all. In that event, we are all cheated because the resulting exchanges become rigged.

Diversity Among Preterist Scholars

While preterists agree on general principles of interpretation, they don’t all agree on specific details. One preterist might see Jerusalem as being symbolized in a given section of the Apocalypse whereas another might make a case that Rome is the intended city. Each scholar must make their respective case as strong as possible. With the projected posthumous release of Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen’s preterist commentary on Revelation,17 we may see similar kinds of divergence of view in comparison to the present work by Dr. Gentry. We sadly won’t see the commentary prepared by John Saunders,18 whose careful scouring of Josephus et al. yielded so many thought-provoking discoveries, but the ongoing Revelation Project19 by Dr. Phillip Kayser will prove a worthy counterpoise20 to Dr. Gentry’s labors from within the preterist circle of expositors.21

For those (like Dr. Bahnsen, the Chalcedon Foundation, and others) for whom the elements of interpretive maximalism embedded in David Chilton’s preterist commentary22 effectively disfigure his expositions, this new work by Dr. Gentry is doubly welcome, as it can be safely recommended without caveats, provisos, and calls for extreme discernment. There is solidity of scholarship here rather than untethered innovation: precisely what the Church needs when walking upon the ancient paths God has established (Jer. 6:16).

Pros and Cons Must Always be Acknowledged

As I noted in my 1989 review of Dr. Gentry’s The Beast of Revelation, it is impossible to avoid circularity of argument on some points. No interpretive model can escape it. This is most evident in how the date of authorship relates to the prophecy’s contents. In this respect, internal and external evidence buttress one another. “Because John describes pre-70 AD events, he wrote it before 70 AD; he wrote before 70 AD, so he must be describing the Vespasianic war that leveled Jerusalem.”23

This only becomes problematic when “audience considerations” are injected into the debate too aggressively, as if this were sufficient to clinch the argument. But scholars who hold that Revelation was written in 95 or 96 AD24 must be allowed to explain how “audience considerations” work under their model too. Deplatforming them, or blotting out their evidence as if it were nonexistent, is not how Christians should conduct a scholarly dispute. This isn’t Facebook where you block someone whose posts conflict with your viewpoint. Rather, we are to grapple with opposing evidence as best we can, rather than pretending there aren’t any difficulties inherent in our view that are worth troubling over.25

On the other hand, preterism does justice to the Apocalypse’s assertion that “the time is at hand” (which phrase became the title of Dr. Jay E. Adams’s short 1966 preterist commentary26 on Revelation). No preterist scholar can be faulted for pressing this fact with appropriate vigor. It is entirely legitimate to compel the competing models to account for these statements by John, given how well the preterist model does precisely that. Each model has pros and cons, and it is legitimate to underscore the strengths of the preterist approach as Dr. Gentry does. On this point, no contortions or dubious mental gymnastics are required of his readers. Futurist interpreters have difficulty finding any foothold whatsoever in these imminence texts, while idealists and historicists aren’t immune from having to squirm somewhat to achieve nominal compliance with them.

Dr. Gentry’s approach to scholarship attempts to balance his mission (to put forward the strongest possible case for preterism polemically) with theological integrity (to attempt to anticipate potential objections in advance and illustrate routes to defuse them without overstatement). Many eyes are on the author, both friendly and hostile, so he must discharge his debt to all interested partisans with diligence and care. To the extent these volumes are an advance over his earlier works, presenting deeper research into the complexities of the Apocalypse, Dr. Gentry will have succeeded in the task he had set for himself.

A Major Addition to Every Christian’s Library

In summary, Dr. Gentry’s commentary on Revelation was important enough for the Chalcedon Foundation to help fund its publication, even though we do not agree with its thesis. However, we do recognize that the advance of Christian scholarship absolutely requires that this book be made available to Christ’s people so they can collectively get that much closer to the final resolution of the weighty questions dealt with in its compellingly argued pages.

Future preterist commentaries will naturally build upon the work that Dr. Gentry has done here, for it strengthens the foundations of a perspective that deserves respect even by those (like myself) who hold to a different perspective on the meaning of Revelation. It is no less significant, however, that subsequent expositions written by idealists and historicists will need to cite from this new commentary if they are to make any claim to completeness, because this work changes the playing field. It provides what its critics seek (the proverbial “big fat juicy target” rich in well-documented citations and covenantal reasoning27) and what its proponents would justifiably covet: a new milestone in preterist exposition of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

There are several different ways to order this large commentary set in the United States, including from the Chalcedon Foundation itself (as we are co-publishers of the work alongside our colleagues at Tolle Lege Press). Overseas sales are handled exclusively by Chalcedon since we have the means for shipping such resources where they are needed outside the United States.

We can safely add that no serious Christian will regret investing in scholarship of this caliber: these volumes are an important addition to the home library. Of the sixty Revelation commentaries I myself own, I rank these Gentry volumes in the top five. A preterist work of substance is what we need in this day and age of renewed apocalyptic sensationalism and the concomitant derailing of Christian influence that such prophetic chaos brings with it. A sober approach like Dr. Gentry’s, brilliantly argued, is precisely what we need at this confused hour. As St. Paul put it, “in understanding, be men” (1 Cor. 14:20), and tools like these that help us shed the influence of childish things are worth every penny.

1. The number has since increased to eighteen commentary sets.

2. This number has increased to forty commentaries in the meantime.

3. The Revelation commentaries by James Durham and David E. Aune are both three-volume tomes. Even more massive is the four-volume commentary by E. B. Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, from the mid-1800s (which I do not own).

4. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Divorce of Israel: A Redemptive-Historical Interpretation of Revelation (Acworth, GA: Tolle Lege Press and Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon Foundation, 2024) in two volumes, co-published as noted.

5. Moses Stuart, Commentary on the Apocalypse in 2 Volumes (London: Wiley and Putnam, 1845).

6. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., The Beast of Revelation (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989).

7. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 3rd ed., 2009 [1992 Institute of Christian Economics, 1997]) with the latest reprints (2021, 2023) published by Victorious Hope Publishing.

8. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision Press, 1998), also republished later by Victorious Hope Publishing. I own two copies of this key work.

9. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., The Book of Revelation Made Easy (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2008).

10. Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., Navigating the Book of Revelation: Special Studies on Important Issues (Fountain Inn, SC: Good Birth Ministries, 2009).

11. Milton S. Terry, The Apocalypse of John: A Preterist Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Chesnee, SC: Victorious Hope Publishing, 2021).

12. https://www.scribd.com/document/235627485/1989-Issue-8-The-Beast-of-Revelation-Counsel-of-Chalcedon#

13. Rousas John Rushdoony, Thy Kingdom Come: Studies in Daniel and Revelation (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1998 [1970]).

14. There are sufficient differences among idealists that scholars like Dr. Phillip Kayser speak of “recapitulationists” to distinguish those idealists who see historic progress in different sections of Revelation versus those whose expositions disregard the element of time almost entirely. If the term catches on, more idealists might adopt it for clarity’s sake. By that measure, Rushdoony would be regarded as a recapitulationist, as would others who are traditionally considered idealists.

15. Benjamin B. Warfield, Critical Reviews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003 reprint [1932 Oxford University Press]), p. 27.

16. The 1962 publication of the seminal six-day creationist volume The Genesis Flood was facilitated by Dr. Rushdoony, who prevailed upon Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company to publish a book that was written by two authors (Drs. Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb) who were neither Presbyterian nor Reformed. The issue was the importance of the book, and history has validated Dr. Rushdoony’s intuition on the matter. This principle also informed the editorial policy for The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, which included important articles by a wide range of Christian thinkers, only some of whom were in lockstep with Dr. Rushdoony himself. This is how business is done when the Kingdom comes first in our thinking, rather than our personal fiefdoms.

17. Such a commentary can be compounded from Dr. Bahnsen’s extant audio lectures. A long-shot possibility also teases us from the fringe: long-lost galley proofs reportedly (and perhaps apocryphally) discovered hidden behind a file cabinet, we were told, may make possible a better edition of Dr. Bahnsen’s work than one based solely on text extraction from his recorded lectures (if such galley proofs actually exist), whereby we may get a better look at this late scholar’s handling of his primary and secondary sources and citations. Historic and archeological discoveries made after Dr. Bahnsen’s passing in 1995 would regrettably be absent from his work, so the careful reader will note places in The Divorce of Israel where Dr. Gentry’s research has incorporated research from the twenty-first century that were as yet unavailable to Dr. Bahnsen.

18. This project was begun by John Saunders (perhaps better known as the actor John Quade) while working with Dr. Marshall Foster and continued after his arrival at the Chalcedon Foundation in the early 1980s. It must be admitted that his discussion of the Apollyon division of Roman forces, or the Roman use of skorpios siege engines, could cause sleepless nights among idealists and historicists whose only rejoinder was that these purported connections were purely coincidental. Tying Revelation to historic events requires precisely such awareness of the full context of those historic events. The Saunders project, like Dr. Bahnsen’s, remained incomplete at his passing, and so it never enjoyed the benefit of an informed critical response.

19. https://revelation.biblicalblueprints.org/home

20. Dr. Kayser’s review of The Divorce of Israel highlights both areas of agreement and divergence over detail, and is worth tracking down on-line. This review is arguably the most cogent one made to date, and was conducted only after Dr. Kayser had read the entirety of Dr. Gentry’s commentary (the word for this is integrity).

21. Douglas Wilson’s When the Man Comes Around (Canon Press, 2019), at 272 total pages, is nowhere near as comprehensive as Dr. Gentry’s collective labors. It is better to regard it as an attempt to popularize this approach to the Apocalypse.

22. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance (Fort Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987). My personal copy is heavily marked up; my annotations pinpoint both the valuable insights and the preventable missteps made by this hard-working scholar. In my view, neither Chilton nor the church at large were well served by the marketing campaign for this particular volume; its pros and cons can be more fairly evaluated now that the promotional dust has been allowed to settle.

23. We see similar cross-category appeals in respect to the number of the beast. The Divorce of Israel would argue that Neron Kesar spelled in Hebrew letters yields the cipher of Rev. 13:18, namely, 666. This identity, if true, would support a pre-70 AD date of authorship. The problem facing preterist authors is in how to present the evidence in an even-handed way. They must account for the fact that the title, QSR, was more commonly spelled with a fourth Hebrew letter, yod, with a numeric value of 10, making the actual computed value 676, which is a mismatch with the beast’s number, breaking the connection to Nero. Dr. Gentry’s thoughts on this have exhibited increasing maturity over time, as he has indicated that spelling wasn’t as settled in the first century as it is now, and that archeological finds have started to provide at least some initial evidence of Neron Kesar without the yod, making the identity at least plausible prior to 70 AD. This doesn’t exhaust the objections raised against Dr. Gentry’s approach, but is indicative of his willingness to throttle back unseemly overstatement and be forthright in how he deals with the complex data sets before him. The complexity arises because Jewish scholars did ultimately standardize the spelling with the yod, but the question remains, what was Jewish practice circa 66 AD? Archeology becomes a potential friend of biblical exposition in matters like this, and the work is ongoing. Digging into ancient sources to ferret out answers is precisely what should be done to finally settle questions of this nature. Once settled, we might then address the other objection: that Neron Kesar wouldn’t be the number of the beast’s name, but of his name and title. This objection may or may not be significant, but it’s best to address it than ignore it to cover all bases. A good expositor anticipates objections so his readers aren’t blindsided the moment they read works by a scholar holding to a different approach to understanding Revelation.

24. We recognize that it is tempting to employ the prophecy of Daniel 9 (“to seal vision and prophet”) to set 70 AD as the upper limit for the composition date of the canonical books of the New Testament. The temptation is further compounded because we have potential internal evidence from scripture itself, which would ordinarily be accorded a privileged status when sifting the relevant data. While this view cannot be altogether ruled out, the interpretation doesn’t fit as well as advertised (notwithstanding the respected scholars who have called for redating the New Testament writings).

25. We might include a brief discussion of the seven heads of the beast. Under preterism, these are usually understood as a line of Roman emperors, which suits the timeline of that model well. Preterists differ from one another on which head represents which historic figure, but we expect Dr. Gentry’s identifications to be the most carefully supported from the available evidence (though a final answer may yet elude our generation). This approach blends well with the Nero identification put forth by preterists. But it is worth understanding that idealists and historicists identify the heads with kingdoms that span centuries of time, where heads 3 through 6 represent Daniel’s four beasts, and heads 1 and 2 represent phases of the beast prior to Daniel receiving his vision. Instead of emperors, the heads represent the enemies of God’s people from time immemorial, in this order: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Macedonia, Rome, followed by a multiplicity of nations signified by the ten horns on the seventh head. This view has its defenders historic and contemporary (myself included) but that doesn’t make it correct. But awareness of alternatives gives us the power to weigh alternatives. Ignorance of alternatives is the road to tunnel vision and echo chambers. The idea that one’s own view is exempt from issues is unhealthy, especially when hidden flaws pop up. A potential overstatement in this regard is that Rev. 11:1 refers to the literal temple while it still stood before its destruction in 70 AD. This interpretation has its own set of problems, and if the reader thinks this view is a slam-dunk (being unaware of its weaknesses), he will be unprepared when encountering constructive criticism from knowledgeable expositors.

26. It is no surprise, then, that Dr. Adams wrote one of the endorsements for Dr. Gentry’s commentary.

27. We must not lose sight of the fact that expositions that treat Revelation as the story of God’s divorce of Israel (such as preterist approaches tend to be) are indeed under obligation to trace the covenantal implications of John’s text. This emphasis is to be preferred over other conceptions (e.g., the liturgical model, etc.) due to the prevalence of juridical elements in the text of Revelation. The covenantal element is present in some idealist commentators as well (Dr. Rushdoony in particular) but they focus on a different set of juridical principles than Dr. Gentry does. Whether Revelation is indeed about the divorce of Israel is the very point that Dr. Gentry seeks to establish in his exposition, and a key element in such an undertaking is to be able to connect the covenantal dots in a convincing way, without artifice or coercion of the text. Preterist scholars (such as Dr. Phillip Kayser) who come to conclusions that differ somewhat from those proposed in The Divorce of Israel generally agree with the primary themes that Dr. Gentry has articulated in these volumes.