“things which must shortly come to pass”

We pick things up in the middle of the 19th century:

“A dei genestai, what must take place, i. e. by an arrangement of an overruling and all-controlling providence. In other words; what is predicted in the Apocalypse will certainly come to pass. Such things are not left to chance, they are not fortuitous, for dei genestai, they must needs happen. In other words still; God, who gave a revelation of future things to Christ, has ordained them and will bring them to pass.”  

I like this, it “will certainly come to pass.”  Dei genestai is an interesting phrase. “Dei” means “god of,” “genesthai” means “to become.” So, literally the phrase is something like: “the god of becoming,” or perhaps “god creating.”  “What must take place” would be a reasonable, colloquial meaning for the phrase, but with the implication that God was behind that “must”.

“En tachei, a controverted expression, on which much has been made to depend. Some commentators, recognizing the evident fact that the apocalyptic predictions cover much ground and require a long series of years for their accomplishment (see Rev. 20:4, 7), have zealously endeavored to show that tachei designates only the maturity of things for any particular event, and, as connected with this, the certainty of the event itself.”

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years…And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison.   (Revelation 20:4,7; KJV)

Wow. This must be an amillennialist who has to find something to do with those thousand years. It was very clear in Revelation that the Tribulation lasts 7 years….not a thousand!

Also, I’ve not seen a meaning listed for tachei that includes “maturity of things” or “certainty of an event.” 

“So Eichhorn; and after him, Heinrichs and others. But the texts appealed to by them do not show this; nor is there any necessary affinity between the certainty of a thing and its speedy accomplishment. E.g. a general judgment is certain; but it is not therefore speedily to take place. The plain and obvious sense of tachei is speedily, quickly, shortly; so o kaipos eggus [the time is near, literally ‘the somehow close’], in v. 3, plainly interprets it. See also Rev. 2:16. 3:11. 11:14. 22:7, 12, 20. 

Repent; or else I will come to thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.   (Revelation 2:16; KJV)

Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.   (Revelation 3:11; KJV)

The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.   (Revelation 11:14; KJV)

Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book…And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be…He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.   (Revelation 22:7,12,20; KJV)

“If now anything clear can be made out from the Apocalypse, it is at least clear that chap. iv — xi. have special reference to Jerusalem and Judea. Equally clear is it that chap, xii—xix. have reference to persecuting an heathen Rome. In both cases persecution was urgent and raging, when the Apocalypse was written; which, as we have seen (Vol. I. § 16 [a chapter entitled: Place and Time of Writing the Apocalypse]), was before the destruction of Jerusalem. Now, although the closing part of the Revelation relates beyond all doubt to a distant period, and some of it to a future eternity, yet the portion of the book which contains this is so small, and that part of the book which was speedily fulfilled is so large, that no reasonable difficulty can be made concerning the declaration before us.

“En tachei,  i. e. speedily, did the things, on account of which the book was principally written, in fact take place. And although the Romish persecutions were afterwards repeated, yet it is enough to vindicate the expression before us, that the overthrow of the then persecuting power was very speedy, and that this overthrow was an earnest of the fate of all future persecutors.”   [from COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE, VOL 2, by Moses Stuart, 1845]

Stuart is a well-known preterist. I perused Chapter 16 in the first volume that he refers to, and I read the part where Stuart claims that John preceded Paul in Asia Minor (one of his proofs that Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, so that Revelation would be predicting the destruction of Jerusalem) and I totally disagree. His biggest point is that the letters in Revelation were to the same number of churches as those of Paul’s epistles, so Paul must have been copying John. Too bad they weren’t the same churches, he might have had an interesting point. He seems to believe this because he found the fragment of a Latin phrase written around 196 AD, that, when translated says: “following the orders of his predecessor John, he writes only by name of seven churches in such order.”  It’s funny, so many are up in arms because we take the writer ‘John’ of Revelation to be the Apostle, but here, Stuart does not question which ‘John’ is mentioned in this anonymous Latin fragment. Stuart also says: “Now as Paul suffered martyrdom under Nero, who died in A. D. 68, it follows that John, according to the author of this Fragment, must have written the Apocalypse before that period; how long before, the Fragment does not intimate.”  I think you get an idea of the weeds he was getting into.

I’ve mentioned before, current thought on the history of Rome is that Nero persecuted (killed) and banished people from Rome, but not in the provinces. Domitian was famous for banishing people from the provinces. So, yes, there was ‘persecution’ during Domitian’s time, but it was likely much less than the persecution of modern day Christians in India, for example. If you called attention to yourself in a Roman province under Domitian, you could be banished; while in India, despite hiding out and avoiding attention, your local government, your neighbors, and often your family, hunt you down and beat you to death.  Stuart’s idea of “urgent and raging” persecution is different than mine.

“Things which must shortly come to pass] On the mode of interpretation devised by Wetstein, this is plain; for if the book were written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and the prophecies in it relate to that destruction, and the civil wars among the Romans, which lasted but three or four years, then it might be said the Revelation is of things which must shortly come to pass. But if we consider the book as referring to the state of the Church in all ages, the words here, and those in ver. 3, must be understood of the commencement of the events predicted; as if he had said: In a short time the train of these visions will be put in motion: —et incipient magni procedere menses.  ‘And those times, pregnant with the most stupendous events, will begin to roll on.’”     [from THE NEW TESTAMENT OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST VOL2: ROMANS TO THE REVELATION, by Adam Clarke, 1846]

Clarke is only giving us two choices: the preterist view that Revelation has already happened, or that Revelation is about the Church history/future. I don’t buy either choice, but I’m not going to argue the points right now. I think the problems with these two interpretations will become more obvious the deeper we get into Revelation.  

As for the Latin, the literal translation is: “and the great months will begin to advance.” Today we have translation services at our finger tips, so if our Latin (or Greek, or Hebrew, etc) isn’t very good, we can still look up phrases to check their meanings. We can see that Clarke took the translation over the top.

“Shortly come to pass. — This is a very important point. It is stated at the very commencement of the Revelation, and is worthy of peculiar attention. One would conclude that all the matters contained in the book were to be fulfilled at no distant day. This, however, is not to be understood as if everything mentioned in the book were future; for it will be seem by i.19, that some things had passed, and some were then present. It could be said only of those which were future, that they were ‘shortly to come to pass.’ The fact, that the events foretold by the revelatory were near, as asserted by him again and again…The remarks of the very learned Dr. Hammond are so valuable on this point, that we shall present them at some length: — ‘Having gone through all the other parts of the New Testament, I came to this last of the Apocalypse, as to a rock that many had miscarried and split upon, with a full resolution not to venture on the expounding of one word in it, but only to perform one office to it, common to the rest, the review of the translation. But it pleased God otherwise to dispose of it; for before I had read (with that design of translating only) to the end of the first verse of the book, these words, which must come to pass presently, had such an impression on my mind, offering themselves as a key to the whole prophecie…that I could not resist the force of them, but attempted presently a general survey of the whole book, to see whether those words might not probably be extended to all the prophecies of it, and have a literal truth in them, viz., that the things foretold and represented in the ensuing visions were presently, speedily to come to pass, one after another, after the writing of them. But before I could prudently pass this judgment, which was to be founded in understanding the subject-matter of all the visions, some other evidences I met with, concurring with this, and giving me abundant grounds of confidence of this one thing, that although I should not be able to understand one period of all these visions, yet I must be obliged to think that they belonged to those times that were then immediately ensuing, and that they had accordingly their completion; and, consequently, that they that pretended to find in those visions the predictions of events in these later ages, and those so nicely defined as to belong to particular acts and persons in this and some other kingdoms…had much mistaken the drift of it.  The arguments that induced this conclusion were these: First, that this was again immediately inculcated, V. 3, for the time is nigh, and that rendered as a proof that these seven churches, to whom the prophecie was written, were concerned to observe and consider the contents of it…Secondly, that …as here in the front, so c. xxii.6, at the close, or shutting up of all these visions, and of St. John’s Epistle to the seven churches, which contained them, ’t is there again added, that God hath sent his angel to shew to his servants the things that must be speedily, or suddenly; and immediately upon the back of that are set the words of Christ, the author of this prophecie, Behold I come quickly, not in the notion of his final coming to judgment, (which hath been the cause of a great deal of mistake…) but of his coming to destroy his enemies, the Jews, &c…Thirdly, that, xxii 10, the command is given to John, not to seal the prophecies of the book, which that it signifies that they were of present use to those times, and therefore to be kept open, and not to be laid up as things that posterity was only or principally concerned in, appears by that reason rendered of it, because the time is nigh, the same which had here at the beginning been given, as the reason that he that  considered the prophecies was blessed in so doing.’

“The remarks of Professor Stuart on this point are certainly worthy of very serious consideration…In i.3, the author solemnly declares, that what is written in this book is of speedy accomplishment…What tolerable meaning now can be given, and defended on exegetical grounds, to the declarations in question, if we suppose that the main portion of the book relates to events some thousand and more of years then future?”    [from COMMENTARY ON THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN, THE DIVINE, by Thomas Whittemore, 1848]

Stuart certainly provided a major cop-out for those who followed him. In a nut shell, what he’s saying here is that you just don’t have to worry if you can’t understand Revelation, because it’s already happened. Move along, nothing to see here. You can hear the relief in Whittemore’s tone; the “I’m so glad I don’t have to deal with this book beyond seeing it as a confusing history” kind of reaction.

“Shortly] It has been hence argued, that the prophecies of this book, must at least have commenced their course of fulfillment soon after John’s days; for that otherwise the word “shortly” would be without meaning. But it is to be remembered, that the whole interval between the first and second advents of Christ, is called by the Holy Ghost, “a little while.” John xvi, 16. Heb. X. 37.

A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.   (John 16:16; KJV)

For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.   (Hebrews 10:37; KJV)

A quick note here: the Hebrews quote is fine and makes the author’s point, but I always thought that the John quote referred to the Apostles seeing Jesus after the Resurrection. He was certainly not implying here that He was going to return for His Second Coming within the Apostles’ lifetimes. He, of course, could be referring to meeting them in Heaven, but I doubt that, and neither meeting them in Heaven or seeing them for His Second Coming would make the author’s point any better than my interpretation.

“And we meet with the very same word, “shortly,” in Rom. xvi. 20, where it is said, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly;” although it is clear that such event has not yet taken place, nor shall be, till Christ comes again. See Rev. xii. 10. 

And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.   (Revelation 12:10; KJV)

“So far, accordingly, as this clause is concerned, there is nothing to forbid the view of this book being even yet,  wholly unfulfilled.”    [from THE APOCALYPSE INTERPRETED IN THE LIGHT OF ‘THE DAY OF THE LORD,’ VOL 1, by James Kelly, 1849]

I have no problem with Kelly’s conclusion, but he obviously doesn’t understand about the different meanings of en tachei.  

“What must shortly come to pass. The fulfillment of what is announced in the Revelation is here placed in the immediate future. So also in other passages. According to ver. 3, and ch. xxii. 10, the time is near. ‘I come quickly,’ says the Lord in xxii. 7, 12, 20, iii. 11, ii. 5, 16. These declarations are opposed to the view of those who would convert the entire book into a history of the time of the end, and confirms the view, which treats it as our companion through the whole course of history. Neither do those do it justice who remark with Bengel, ‘therefore did the fulfillment begin immediately after the date of the book.’  Not merely was the beginning in general ascribed to the immediate future, but such a beginning as was to be the beginning of the end. There is here a touchstone for the exposition of  the book, before which that of Bengel and the old Protestant one cannot stand. For there the main burden of the book refers to relations, of which no notion could as yet be formed. ‘The keeper of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps,’ ‘I am with you always to the end of the world,’ — of these truths, the ‘shortly coming to pass,’ and the ‘I come quickly’ of this book, are the necessary consequence. The boundless energy of the divine nature admits here of no delay. There is nothing of quiescence or indolent repose in God. His appearing often to linger is merely on account of our short-sightedness. He is secretly working for salvation and destruction, when he seems to us, perhaps, to be standing aloof; and only when by the execution of his judgment we are called to enter into his salvation, do we learn consequently what is meant by the ‘shortly.’ At every period, when the book acquires new significance by Satan stirring up new wars against Christ and his church, the ‘shortly,’ and ‘I come quickly,’ also spring again into new life. Where the carcass is, there the eagles are constantly gathered together; and where the distress is greatest, there the help is also nearest. God be praised that we are never pointed to the far-distant future; but that the retributive justice of God against sin, and his pity and compassion toward the wretched, tread closely on each other’s heels.“

I had real trouble understanding this passage yesterday…it was just too hot. But today, I see it pretty clearly. The author is saying that en tachei means only “soon;” not “starting after John’s time” but immediately. He offers no proof here, but he will probably attempt that later as he delves further into the preterism. I totally disagree with this view, and I wonder what people who have believed this think is going on in their own day.  No wonder people began to believe that God was dead…if we see Him as not active in our time then we lose all connection with Him. Thus, the author says: “God be praised that we are never pointed to the far-distant future; but that the retributive justice of God against sin, and his pity and compassion toward the wretched, tread closely on each other’s heels.” This author was writing in 1851, and this statement implies that God thought everything in the mid-19th century was righteous and fine (because he wasn’t providing immediate “retributive justice”). That could be extrapolated to today, and I’ve seen preterist writers say this, that Christians are making the world better and better as Christ rules the world from Heaven and Satan is locked away in the pit.  This does not describe the world I see out there. I see us as in a “far-distant future” from John that is increasingly lawless, attempting to destroy children, trying to establish a world-wide dictatorship, and generally worse than Sodom was. But let’s continue with the quote:

“It is nothing but a shift to say, as numbers do here, that the measure of time we are to think of is not the human, but the divine, with which a thousand years are as one day (Ps. xc. 4, 2 Pet. iii.8).” 

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.   (Psalms 90:4; KJV)

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.   (2 Peter 3:8)

So, he falls back on the time issue.  I have no idea what he means by: “It is nothing but a shift to say, as numbers do here…”  What numbers? A shift to what?  I usually understand 18th and 19th century speech, but I’m not getting it here. Onward:

“The remarks made respecting this in my Christology on Hos. ii. 6, ‘Yet once it is a little while, and I shake the heavens and the earth, and the sea and the dry land,’ are equally applicable here: ‘Whoever speaks to men, must speak according to the human mode of viewing things, or give notice if he does otherwise. It is for the purpose of consoling us, that the prophet declares the shortness of time. But for such a purpose, that only was suitable which might appear short in the eyes of men. Only in mockery or by deception could the prophet have substituted that, which was short in the reckoning of God.’ We have there shewn, that the shaking spoken of began to take effect in the immediate future. The axe was already laid to the root of the Persian kingdom (as in the time of John to that of the Roman), and its subsequent visible fall was only the manifestation of a much earlier latent one. De Wette’s remark, that the shortness must not be taken too stringently, that it was used to encourage the suffering and warn the impenitent, represents the Seer’s God and the Lord himself, who in Luke xviii. 8 likewise promises a speedy deliverance to his faithful people, as acting like the worthless physician who feeds his patients with false hopes. That Luke xviii. 7 can only be quoted in support of such a view on a wrong interpretation, is manifest.”

⁷And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? ⁸I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?   (Luke 18:7,8; KJV)

His conclusion here seems to be that there is God’s time and human time, they are not the same, and if a prophecy doesn’t proclaim that it’s using God’s time when it is using it, then it’s not acting very fairly. Again, the word “speedily,” or “en tachei” seems to be limited to “soon.” 

I have another, more theological complaint about the last paragraph. The author says: “The axe was already laid to the root of the Persian kingdom (as in the time of John to that of the Roman)…”  Here is this idea in Matthew:

⁷But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, “You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? ⁸Therefore produce fruit consistent with repentance; ⁹and do not assume that you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father’; for I tell you that God is able, from these stones, to raise up children for Abraham. ¹⁰And the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore, every tree that does not bear good fruit is being cut down and thrown into the fire.    (Matthew 3:7-10; NASB)

So, John was calling out the Pharisees and Sadducees…why would he insult them up and down and then tell them that the axe is laid to the roots of Rome?  Clearly, the axe is laid to the roots of the Pharisees and Sadducees, not Rome, and that puts a hole in his lead up to his preterist interpretation.

“And in refutation of it, as also against the notion of its being the divine measurement of time that is to be understood, there is the circumstance that in the fundamental passage, Ezekiel xii., to which the expression in ver. 3, ‘the time is near,’ refers, the declaration, ‘the days are near,’ in ver. 23, corresponds to ‘in your days, ye rebellious house, will I do it,’ in ver. 25.“

³Therefore, thou son of man, prepare thee stuff for removing, and remove by day in their sight; and thou shalt remove from thy place to another place in their sight: it may be they will consider, though they be a rebellious house…²²Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth? ²³Tell them therefore, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, The days are at hand, and the effect of every vision…²⁵For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall be no more prolonged: for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and perform it, saith the Lord GOD.   (Ezekiel 12:3,22,23,25; KJV)  

The implication here is that Ezekiel’s prophecies about Babylon happened ‘right away’ so Revelation must be that way too. This totally ignores the parts of Ezekiel that haven’t happened yet and that some of us anticipate occurring in the near future. I suppose that as a preterist, the author is seeing all prophecy as having already occurred, including the Ezekiel 38 war, no matter how twisted and convoluted the explanation has to be. Again, if prophecy is done, then seeing God move in our time is very difficult, beyond the small mercies He grants each of us in our personal lives. Keep your eyes open, I think that God is not done with us.

And, why he quoted Ezekiel 12:3 I have no idea; it doesn’t say what he said it did.

“On the ‘what must shortly come to pass.’ comp. iv. 1, xxii 6. The  best commentary is to found in Isa. xiv. 27, ‘For the Lord of Hosts hath purposed it, who will disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, who will turn it back?’ So also the must in Math. xxiv. 6 is to understood of the necessity, which has its foundation in the divine purpose. 

And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.   (Matthew 24:6; KJV)

On the other hand, in Math. xxvi. 54, the necessity rests primarily on the prophecies: it must fall out so, because it has been so predicted. 

But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?   (Matthew 26:54; KJV)

I like this particular line of thought. If it’s prophesied, then it must come to pass. If it does not, then the prophet is false. But some prophecies say they are imminent, and others do not.

“But the prophecies are of weight only in so far as they manifest the divine purpose, so that the matter still returns back to this. Here a reference to the prophecies, as the more remote one, would have been more definitely marked.”   [from CLARK’S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, VOL 22: HENGSTENBERG ON THE REVELATION OF ST JOHN, VOL 1 &2, by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, 1851]

I’ve liked the writing of Hengstenberg previous to this quote, but I’ll be interested to see his verse-by-verse as he gets deeper in Revelation. Most preterists avoid verse-by-verse exposition as to do that is to tie themselves into knots.

“The meaning of in en tachei is much disputed. But, like “firstborn” in
the question about the brethren of the Lord, ‘shortly’ ought not to be pressed in determining the scope of the Apocalypse. Calling Jesus the firstborn Son of Mary tells us nothing as to her having other children. Saying that the Apocalypse shows things which must shortly come to pass tells us nothing as to its referring to events near St. John’s own day. Probably it refers to them and to much else in the Christian dispensation. In the language of the seer, past, present, and future are interwoven together as seen by God, and more truth is contained than the seer himself knows. ‘The whole book ought to be received as a single word uttered in a single moment’ (Bengel). It does not follow, because St. John had events near to his own day in his mind, that his words are limited to those events for us (comp. Luke xviii. 7, 8 ; Matt. xxiv. 29 ; 2 Pet. iii. 4, 8; Hab. ii. 3…)”    [from THE PULPIT COMMENTARIES: REVELATION, VOL 22, by Spence & Excell, ~1856]

⁷And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? ⁸I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?   (Luke 18:7-8; KJV)

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.   (Matthew 24:29; KJV)

And saying, Were is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation…But, beloved,  be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.   (2 Peter 3:8; KJV)

For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.   (Habakkuk 2:3; KJV)

I like the analogies used to show that things may or may not have started shortly after the prophecy was made. I also like the allusion to John having current things in mind as he wrote what was shown to him; I can see that might be possible.  But, I trust that John had given his whole being to Christ, which suggests that he did not have specific, human ideas about what he was shown.

I also like that the Pulpit Commentaries mentioned that great quote by Bengel!

That’s all for today; we’ll continue on through the 19th century next time.