Archive for prophetic postponement
Heaven And Earth Might Have Passed Away!
Matthew 5: 17-18: “Think not that I am come to loosen down (Gr. kataluo) the law and the prophets. I am not come to throw down, but to fill up. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth MAY PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all MAY TAKE PLACE.”
If we look at Christ’s words in the original Greek text, we’ll find that He is making a conditional statement. This is verified by use of the particle ‘an,’ which always modifies the action of the verb, making it contingent on some condition express or implied.
Young’s Literal Translation gives a more faithful rendering than that of the AV:
| 17. `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill; 18. for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. |
Not one jot or tittle would pass from the law, until certain things might have happened.
–The heaven and earth MIGHT have passed away.
–All things MIGHT have taken place.
According to E.W. Bullinger’s “Critical Lexicon and Concordance To The English and Greek New Testament,” the word “kataluo” means “to loosen down, to dissolve, i.e., to disunite the parts of anything, spoken of buildings to throw down, to put an end to” (pg. 220). The verb occurs 17 times in the N.T., and is rendered ”dissolve,” “destroy,” “throw down,” “overthrow,” “lodge,” “be guest,” and “come to nought.” The scope and context of a given passage will determine its precise meaning.
It Matthew 5: 17, ”kataluo” clearly bears the primary sense. Christ didn’t want to loosen down, or dismantle, the law and the prophets. Which is why He offered the whole Messianic package to Israel (Romans 15: 8). Unfortunately, Israel never accepted their Messiah, and so the package was broken up, and salvation sent to the Gentiles (Acts 28: 28).
Instead of all things being fulfilled in A.D. 70, the temple was destroyed, and the Messianic promises that would accompany Christ’s coming in glory were postponed to a future time. This is because the hope of Israel is conditional on NATIONAL REPENTANCE (Hosea 5: 15; Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21).
During the first century, a special window of grace was given to make good the fulfillment of all things that were written. The whole package was held out to Israel until this window was closed. During this period of opportunity, Christ was “STANDING at the door,” waiting for Israel’s repentance (James 5: 9; Rev. 3: 20; cf. Acts 7: 56). The saints were told that they could hasten the day of God! (2 Peter 3: 11-12).
But since the nation didn’t repent, fulfillment never materialized. The parousia was postponed, and the “hope of Israel” put into abeyance. The Dispensation of the Mystery (Eph. 3: 9) was interposed between Israel’s “rejection” and their “renewal,” to fill up the gap created by the breaking short of the Pentecostal Dispensation.
So what does that mean? It means that once the time-frame for fulfillment of the condition ran out, there was no reason why certain jots and tittles of the law should not pass away.
We are not suggesting that any prophecy fell to the ground. The package that Christ originally offered was simply dismantled. The promised threats were executed upon the covenant nation for their unbelief; but the promises of glory were not fulfilled, because they involve the PAROUSIA of Christ. Because certain jots and tittles passed from the law in A.D. 70, the fulfillment of Israel’s blessings is still future!
Old Testament Timing-Texts
Contrary to Preterist belief, the Old Testament contains many statements which represent an event as “near at hand,” or scheduled to take place “soon.” Parallel New Testament statements would convince many that, when the words were spoken or written, guaranteed fulfillment was right around the corner. However, a careful look at the Old Testament concept of prophetic imminence leads us to believe that God often postpones events which He predicts must take place shortly (see, e.g., Genesis 2: 17; cf. 5: 5; 1 Kings 21: 27-29; 2 Kings 20: 1-6; Jeremiah 18: 7-10; Jonah 3: 4; cf. 3: 10).
The principle holds good especially when unconditional promises related to the Abrahamic covenant are offered during a ”probationary period” associated with the conditional (two-sided) Mosaic covenant. When such is the case, all offers become contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions contained in the subsidiary covenant.
Keeping in mind that in God’s concept of time, a day is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3: 8), all timing texts will be seen to work according to a principle which we laid down several months ago, and which we summed up as follows: “By way of authority, all imminency-texts are referable to God’s standard of time. By way of application, they may refer to any epoch of human history; albeit, removal of the application can never nullify the authority.”
To help Christians in their studies, we are now providing a list of every timing text in the Old Testament. These texts have been gathered through repeated readings of the Old Testament, and not by any other source. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time all these texts have been brought together under one head.
We send forth this offering with the hopes that our endeavors may be of value to others. To further assist the reader, each passage has been dated according to the chronological system of Dr. E.W. Bullinger, further details of which may be found in Appendix 50 of the “Companion Bible.”
*********
(Deut. 32: 35) ”To me belongeth vengeance and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.” [B.C. 1452].
(Psalm 37: 1) “Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.” [c. B.C. 950].
(Psalm 37: 10) “For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be. Yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.” [c. B.C. 950].
(Isaiah 10: 25) “For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.” [B.C. 631-630].
(Isaiah 13: 5) “Howl, ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.” [B.C. 649-588].
(Isaiah 29: 17) “Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?“ [B.C. 649-588].
(Isaiah 46: 13) “I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.” [B.C. 649-588].
(Isaiah 56: 1) “Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.” [B.C. 603-588].
(Jeremiah 48: 16) “The calamity of Moab is near to come, and his affliction hasteth fast.” [B.C. 496].
(Jeremiah 51: 3) “For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel; The daughter of Babylon is like a threshingfloor, it is time to thresh her: yet a little while, and the time of her harvest shall come.” [c. B.C. 496].
(Lamentations 4: 18) “They hunt our steps, that we cannot go in our streets: our end is near, our days are fulfilled: for our end is come.” [c. B.C. 477].
(Ezekiel 7: 12) “The time is come, the day draweth near: let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn: for wrath is upon all the multitude thereof.” [B.C. 484].
(Ezekiel 30: 3) “For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.” [B.C. 479].
(Ezekiel 36: 8] “But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to My people of Israel; for they are at hand to come.” [B.C. 477].
(Hosea 1: 4) “And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.” [B.C. 489-411].
(Joel 1: 15) “Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.” [B.C. 489-411].
(Joel 2: 1) “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is night at hand.” [B.C. 488-477].
(Joel 3: 14) “Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.” [B.C. 488-477].
(Obadiah 15) “For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.” [B.C. 482 or 472].
(Zephaniah 1: 7) “Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord God: for the day of the Lord is at hand: for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, He hath bid His guests.” [B.C. 518].
(Zephaniah 1: 14) “The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.” [B.C. 518].
(Haggai 2: 6) “For thus saith the Lord of Hosts; yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land.” [B.C. 410].
Dr. Randall Price– On The Postponement of Daniel’s 70th Week
The justification for a delay in the fulfillment of the 70th week is drawn from the structural divisions of the 70 weeks, Jesus’ placement of the events described in verse 27 in an eschatological context, and the adoption of the arrangement of the 70th week as a paradigm for the judgment section of the Book of Revelation.
It should be also noted that the extension of the 70 years of Jeremiah’s prophecy to 70 weeks of years is an example of postonement. The restoration Jeremiah promised after 70 years (of exile) was not realized because the spiritual condition of the nation had not changed (see Daniel 9: 5-14). Gabriel reveals to Daniel that though the 70-year exile would end as promised, the promise of restoration would not be fulfilled until after the 70th week.
Though a partial Judean restoration was achieved on a physical level (the rebuilding of the city and temple), it could not be effected on a spiritual level (the New Covenant) because the nation failed to recognize and accept their Messiah. Ultimate restoration awaits national repentance toward the Messiah (Acts 3: 19-21), which will not be realized until the conclusion of the 70th week (Matt. 24: 29-30; Romans 11: 25-27).
Israel’s “Lo-Ammi” Periods
Some of the foremost difficulties encountered by Bible students lie in the field of chronology. Higher criticism would tell us of inconsistencies in the Divine record itself; and though such difficulties can be (and have been) surmounted, it is too often with a sense of embarassment that they are explained away.
Take, for instance, the statement in 1 Kings 6: 1, that Solomon began to build his temple in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt. This is well and good. But when we turn to Paul’s statement in Acts 13: 17-21, we come up with a figure of 573 years (counting, of course, the reign of king David, and the first three years of Solomon’s reign).
Now here is a discrepancy of 93 years; and it is for this reason that Bible students come to a standstill. Most chronologists accept the account in 1 Kings 6: 1, and leave Paul’s statement to fend for itself. Or, they say that Paul was “only speaking generally.” However, what they fail to see is that both statements are literally true. The figures are given, however, according to two different reckonings.
The calculation in 1 Kings 6: 1 is not an “Anno Mundi” figure, but what we may call (for the sake of convenience) an “Anno Dei” figure. Whereas Paul’s calculation is actually the correct “Anno Mundi” reckoning. What accounts for the difference?
Due to a forced “linear perception” of prophetic and chronological fulfillment (“once the ball starts rolling it never stops”) , students fail to see that whenever Israel was counted “Lo-Ammi” (“not my people”) by God, their national history years were omitted from the lifetime of the world. This creates gaps, or lacunae, in Bible chronology, which must be filled in.
The figure given in 1 Kings 6 is not an Anno Mundi calculation, but an Anno Dei one. By taking it as Anno Mundi, confusion is created in the Biblical record, and havoc is made in regard to the correct date of events.
The 93-year discrepancy between 1 Kings 6 and the account given by Paul in Acts 13 can easily be explained when we turn to the Book of Judges. There we shall find five distinct periods during which Israel was “given up” and sold into the hands of their enemies.
After the death of Joshua, it is recorded that the children of Israel ”did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim and the groves” (Judges 3: 7). Therefore, the Lord sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, for the space of eight years (Judges 3: 8). This was the first “Lo-Ammi” period, which ended when Othniel, the son of Kenaz, began to judge the nation. Under his judgeship the land had rest for forty years (Judges 3: 11).
The second ”Lo-Ammi” period commenced when the children of Israel were sold into the hands of Eglon, the king of Moab, for eighteen years (Judges 3: 14). The servitude was ended by Ehud the son of Gera, whom God raised up to judge Israel (Judges 3: 15). Ehud delivered the nation out of the hands of Moab, and the land had rest for eighty years (Judges 3: 30).
The third “Lo-Ammi” period came about when Israel was sold into the hand of Jabin the king of Canaan, who oppressed them for twenty years (Judges 4: 3). The nation was then rescued by Deborah and Barak (Judges 4: 4-10); and after the defeat of Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, the land had rest for forty years (Judges 5: 31).
The fourth “Lo-Ammi” period began when Israel was delivered into the hands of the Midianites, and it lasted for seven years (Judges 6: 1). This “Lo-Ammi” period was ended by the judgeship of Gideon, who delivered the nation from its enemies. Then the land had rest for forty years (Judges 8: 28).
The fifth “Lo-Ammi” period occurred when the Lord delivered Israel into the hand of the Philistines for forty years (Judges 13: 1). Although Samson gave the land no rest, he judged Israel for twenty years (Judges 15: 20).
Here we must note, that the Book of Judges lists another captivity which is sometimes wrongly considered a “Lo-Ammi” period. This is found in Judges 10: 7-9, where it is recorded that the Philistines and the children of Ammon vexed the children of Israel for eighteen years. Yet this “oppression” was local and beyond Jordan, and did not affect the national status. Therefore, it is not a “Lo-Ammi” period. [For more information, see Dr. Bullinger's note on 1 Kings 6: 1, Companion Bible, pg. 456].
The important thing to keep in mind is this: that during each of these “captivities,” Israel’s national history was omitted from the lifetime of the world. This can be easily seen when we add the number of years of the various “Lo-Ammi” periods.
1. Mesopotamia/ 8 years
2. Moab/ 18 years
3. Canaan/ 20 years
4. Midian/ 7 years
5. Philistia/ 40 years
TOTAL = 93 years
Thus it is seen that the numeric figure given in 1 Kings 6: 1 agrees with that of Paul – but only when we take into account the two different modes of reckoning. Paul was working from an “Anno Mundi” scheme. But the figure in 1 Kings 6: 1 ignores the 93 years of national servitude when the nation became ”Lo-Ammi.” This tells us, of course, that the figure was computed according to an ”Anno Dei” reckoning.
Of course, we are not to assume that the captivities recorded in the Book of Judges comprise Israel’s only “Lo-Ammi” periods. There are other such periods in Israel’s national history, which include: Athaliah’s six years of usurpation; the gap of thirteen years between the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah; and the seventy years of Babylonian captivity. These periods must all be taken into account if we would come to a proper understanding of Biblical chronology.
The most important “Lo-Ammi” period — at least to ourselves — is that which began in Acts 28: 28, when the nation of Israel was formally set aside, and their “hope” (the PAROUSIA) put in abeyance. It was then that the parenthetical Dispensation of the Mystery (Eph. 3: 9) began.
Unless the reader understands how these “Lo-Ammi” periods work, he/she will be apt to stumble into errors like Preterism, which teaches that Christ actually returned in A.D. 70. But when Acts 28: 28 is rightly seen as the commencement of Israel’s longest and greatest “Lo-Ammi” period (see Hosea 3: 4-5), all the pieces fall into order, and consistency takes the place of confusion.
What Imminency Means
In past articles, I’ve dealt extensively with the so-called “timing texts” often adduced by Hyper-Preterists in support of their view that Jesus Christ returned in A.D. 70. I want to make clear my position on the doctrine of imminency. It is no act of surrender to say that when God said that something was “near,” or “at hand,” then it was truly imminent!
However, there are two foundational issues which Preterists miss when correctly viewing the concept of timing. Firstly, they fail to examine from whose perspective the consummation was imminent. Secondly, they do not recognize, as an important exegetical principle, that phrases like “soon,” “near,” and “at hand” cannot be converted to past fulfillment without changing the meaning of the terms employed. All too often, the Preterist jumps to a conclusion which is not directly warranted by the text, and ends up substituting his authority for that of the inspired Word.
Failure to recognize that in many instances, imminency involves God’s plan and purpose, and not man’s perception of things, prevents a correct analysis of the timing elements found in the New Testament. If this imminency relates to the temporal sphere alone, then it is reasonable (in many cases) to say that something might have already happened. But the words delivered to the apostles of the Lamb are the words of God. They represent God’s thoughts, rather than man’s (2 Peter 1: 21).
Of course, it is safe to say, that in a good majority of cases, imminency does pertain to the temporal realm. There was certainly a sense in which were things were rapidly nearing their consummation in the first century (Romans 13: 11; 1 Cor. 10: 11).
But to claim, in light of this imminency, that the events are now behind us, strikes me as an unwarranted trifling with Scripture. After all, Preterists act like the only way out of the difficulty is to say that something already happened. But is this the only theological solution? An in-depth study of these issues has assured me there are other options more in keeping with consistent exposition of the Word.
The main trouble with the Preterist interpretation is that it employs an exegetical double-standard. It takes phrases such as “soon,” “near” and “at hand,” in a pseudo-literal sense, and after converting these statements to past fulfillment, proceeds to spiritualize and/or change the meaning of large portions of Scripture. This is a form of a priori logic, in which the conclusions are “prior” to the gathering of the evidence. Obviously, such a method is not in keeping with the laws of exegesis. If there can be found a more reasonable method which relies on uniform principles of interpretation, will we accept it?
When the consensus is taken in, it is clear that a consistent literal approach does away with the problems created by the Preterist point of view. Such a method allows us to take the timing statements in a literal sense, while also keeping the plain and natural meaning of the governing referent before us. This method will lead to one or two results. It will either force us to deny the validity of the Bible; or it will lead us to adopt an Apotelesmatic system of interpretation.
The Apotelesmatic view holds that consummation of the eschaton was indeed imminent during the first century. However, its fulfillment was subsequently postponed. Rather than relying on random conclusions, the Apostlesmatic approach finds evidence that the first-century coming of Christ was dependent on Jewish national repentance (Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21). Because the Jews did not repent, their city was destroyed, and the second coming relegated to a future time.
Such a conclusion is easy to understand, and solves the difficulties created by the imminency factor. It is also highly commended, inasmuch as it honors the authority of the New Testament canon, and sees that the teachings contained therein are as fully applicable today as they were in the first century.
This method departs radically from the Preterist interpretation, which often leaves one wondering whether the great majority of the Word of God is now out of date. The danger of such a view is that spurious replacement Gospels may be substituted for the “one faith” that Jesus Christ and His hand-picked apostles laid down in the New Testament. In the end, the interpreter is found in possession of more objective truth than the New Testament itself. However, the Apotelesmatic approach obviates this concern, affirming the currency of the canon, as well as the revealed teachings of the Bible — plus nothing, minus nothing.
In past months, I’ve written a number of articles dealing with the Apotelesmatic system of interpretation. These articles can be found by clicking here. The particular method of interpretation I employ is not new at all, but was systematized by E.W. Bullinger in his 1911 work The Foundations of Dispensational Truth. While I would disagree with many of Dr. Bullinger’s conclusions, I believe that his leading principles of interpretation are accurate; at least they are systematic, and show a marked adavancement over the Preterist method.
If anyone should have questions concerning issues of timing, audience relevence, and other concepts upon which doctrines of Preterism are built, they may contact me personally at bsimmons@basicisp.net. As always, let us be honest in our investigations, and Berean in our approach.
Harry Meyers– Exposition of New Testament Time-Texts (Audio Sermon)
(1973)
“Now let’s go back over to 1 Thess. 4: 16-17. Paul said that he expected to be alive. Paul said that he expected to be alive when Christ came back. That would mean that Paul would need no resurrection. If Paul was alive when Christ came back he wouldn’t need a resurrection. But when I read Philippians 3: 11, Paul was trying to attain to a resurrection. He was trying to attain to a resurrection! So that meant there had been a change in the plan and the purpose of God. Paul, when he wrote Philippians, chapter 1, verse 23, he realized that he could die there. So Paul was in need of a resurrection. And now he’s wanting to attain to the resurrection. Because he knew that the time of the second coming of Christ had been postponed.
“Now what happened? God had prophesied in the Old Testament certain events. And these events were put down in order. What about the second coming? What about the kingdom? What about the beast? What about Matthew 24? What about all the prophecies that Christ had spoken about? What about that period time? What did God do? This illustration may be a crude illustration. But this is what I think God did. The time that He had prophesied about, in Acts 28 He cuts it off.
“What is He going to do with that time? It’s held in the hand of God. It’s in abeyance until a future day. So that means that there’s a gap in prophecy.
“What did God fill that gap with, after He cut off prophetic time? Let us turn to Ephesians chapter 3. You know God had something hidden in His heart. It must have been glorious to be hid in the heart of God. God surprised principalities and powers; He surprised the human race; He surprised the nation of Israel. It was hid in the heart of God.
“Paul says here in verse 8: “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, Who created all things by Jesus Christ.” God hid this mystery in His heart. And He filled this gap in prophecy with this mystery.”
http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/TFT%2025th%20Anniversary%20Part%201.mp3
Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.- On The Early Date of Revelation
(from The Foundations of Dispensational Truth, 1911)
We declare here for the earlier date on the authority of the Syriac version, which was quoted by Melito of Sardis as early as A.D. 170, and is thus older than any other authority and much older than any Greek manuscript extant. Now, as to the Syriac (Peshitto) version, this great fact stands clearly out; that notwithstanding the grievous and hostile divisions of the Syrian communions, yet all the manuscripts of that version “exhibit a text in every important respect the same” though used by all these rival churches.
The heading (in the Syriac version) reads:
”The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor.” This would give the date as during his reign, which was from A.D. 54-68.
Irenaeus [about A.D. 178] speaks of John “who saw the Revelation. For it is not long since he (or it) was seen, but almost within our own generation about the end of Domitian’s reign.” The last sentence is ambiguous, and probably means that John was seen, for this sense is required by the context, which treats not of authorship or dates, but of why the name of antichrist is not mentioned.
As those who favor the later date for the Apocalypse, follow Irenaeus, their testimony is not independent, and therefore has no weight. The later date would be the period of Domitian’s reign which was from A.D. 81-96, i.e., after the destruction of Jerusalem. The importance of this point will be immediately seen; for in Nero’s reign (the earlier date) Jerusalem and the temple were still standing, and are both spoken of as such in Rev. 11: 1, 2, 8.
But the real evidence as to the date, is in the book itself. In ch. 1: 1 it is distinctly stated that the book of “Revelation” was given “to show unto His servants things that must shortly come to pass.”
In ch. 1: 3, “Blessed is he that readeth… for the time is near.”
In ch. 3: 10, “the time of trial is about to come.”
In ch. 3: 11, “Behold, I come quickly.”
In ch. 16: 15, “Behold, I come like a thief.”
Three times in the last chapter we have, “Behold, I come quickly,” viz., in 22: 7, 12, and 20.
**********
Then, all was imminent; now, all that they wrote about is in abeyance. Then, the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers was very near; since then it has been remote. This is the only true and real sense which we can make of that apocalypse coming “shortly” and “quickly” (Rev. 1: 1, 3). Many believers are perplexed at such expressions as these. They cannot understand how John was told to say that the things he was to write about “must shortly come to pass” (Rev. 1: 1). They fail to see that it was perfectly true; for John wrote immediately before the end of that Dispensation which he calls “the last hour.”
**********
Now with regard to the Apocalypse: who of us has not been perpexed with the opening statement that John was to write concerning “things which must SHORTLY come to pass?” In verse 3, it is added, “the time (or season) is near.” There must have been a true and literal sense in which these words were to be understood.
Though He, Who sees the end from the beginning knew that Peter’s offer in Acts 3: 19-26 would be rejected, yet He must not, writing by His servant John, assume that that would be the case. John must be instructed to write what would be understood; and he wrote to the assemblies as directed.
In the assured belief that God was not mocking His people in promising to send Jesus Christ on their repentance, no hint of any kind must be given as to the Divine foreknowledge of the end. The freewill of the people must not be forestalled. Full responsibility must be left with the nation during the whole of that Dispensation, up to the last memorable whole-day conference in Rome (Acts 28: 23-29).
We may be certain that Paul left nothing unsaid on that solemn occasion, and left no argument unused, when, “from morning until evening,” he “expounded and fully testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets.”
The apostle John could do no less. The sending of the Lord Jesus Christ, as promised in Acts 3: 19-26, involved the fulfillment of “all the events which were to come with the revelation and unveling of Jesus Christ,” and included the “restoration of all things which had been foretold by all the prophets.”
Hence it could be said, in a very real sense, in which it cannot now be said, that the “revelation” of Jesus Christ must “shortly come to pass.” The “must,” of course, refers to the certainty of the promise, not to the uncertainty of Israel’s decision. From the Divine point of view, “must” was the only correct word to be used. It is not repeated at the end of the book, but three times in the last chapter we have “Behold (or surely) I come quickly” (verses 7, 12, 20); and once, “the time is at hand” (verse 10) or near (as in ch. 1: 3).
There was a true and real sense in which the Revelation or Apocalypse could then be spoken of as “near;” and it must have come with greater weight at that time than it can come to believers of the present day. That is to say, it cannot now be spoken of near in the same sense as it was spoken of then.
**********
Our readers will perceive that we are not only giving coherence to other passages which are the cause of so many difficulties of interpretation; but are being provided with a powerful argument against the teachings of the vast majority who hold that the Lord did come at the destruction of Jerusalem. Among the standard commentators, there are many who hold or uphold that view.
