We start today with my favorite radio commentator:

“‘Must’ — He says that they must shortly come to pass. The word must has in it an urgent necessity and an absolute certainty.

“‘Shortly’ has a connotation that is very important for us to note.  The word occurs quite a few times in the Scriptures. For instance, we have it in Luke 18:8 where our Lord says, ‘I tell you that he will avenge them (His elect) speedily…’ 

I tell you, he will vindicate them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?    (Luke 18:8; RSV)

“The word speedily is the same word as shortly. It means that when the vengeance begins, it will take place in a hurry. There will be no waiting around for it. That implies that the Lord is not coming soon, but that when He does return, the things He is talking about will happen shortly and with great speed. His vengeance will take place in a brief period of time.”     [from REVELATION: CHAPTERS 1-5, by J. Vernon McGee, 1975]

Short and to the point.

“Certainly the book deals with much that still lies in the future. But notice that John was shown ‘what must soon take place’. This is a phrase taken from pre-Christian apocalyptic and subtly changed. The revelation to Daniel concerned what was to happen ‘in the latter days’ (Dn. 2:28). 

but there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnez’zar what will be in the latter days. Your dream and the visions of your head as you lay in bed are these:      (Daniel 2:28; RSV)

“But the early church believed that when the Christian era began, the last days had actually begun also (Acts 2:16 f.; 3:24). 

¹⁶but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: ¹⁷“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall dream dreams;   (Acts 2:16-17; RSV)

And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came afterwards, also proclaimed these days.    (Acts 3:24; RSV)

“It is true that the word for ‘soon’ could also be translated ‘suddenly’ (it is ambiguous, like the English ‘quickly’); and it could therefore be held to mean that when the prophesied events did happen, they would happen speedily, but that they might not begin to happen till long after John’s time. On this view the greater part of Revelation might still, even today, be unfulfilled. ‘Suddenly’, however, sounds most unnatural in the context of ver 1; and the verse as it stands is certainly not referring to the far future. When we find Daniel’s ‘what will be in the latter days’ replaced by John’s ‘what must soon take place’, the object is rather the opposite — to bring events which were once distantly future into the immediate present; so that it is in this sense that ‘the time is near’.

“Time for what? we may ask. Time for the end of time, and all its associated events? Time for the beginning of a long series of happenings which will eventually usher in the end? Time for some immediate crisis of trouble or persecution, which will be a kind of foreshadowing of the end? John is not told immediately.

“But it is worth pointing out what Daniel had in mind when he spoke of the events of the latter days. It was the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, in which that king had been shown, in the shape of a great statue, a succession of world empires beginning from his own. In the days of the last of those empires, explains Daniel, ‘the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed’ (Dn 2:44).

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever;     (Daniel 2:44; RSV)

“And now John has seen the latter days arrive. The setting up of God’s kingdom has begun with the coming of Christ; and the promise that ‘it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever’ (Dn. 2:44), is already starting to be fulfilled. The fulfillment is a process, not a crisis; and a lengthy one, not a sudden one, we may observe — for though events at its climax will move swiftly enough, the process itself will occupy the whole of the gospel age, from the inauguration of the kingdom (12:10) to its final triumph (11:15). 

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.     (Revelation 12:10; RSV)

Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever.”  (Revelation 11:15; RSV)

“If this that Daniel has foreseen for the latter days is what the angel is now bringing to John’s immediate purview, then ‘the time is near’ indeed. As soon as his letter reaches its destination in the churches of Asia, they will be able to say, ‘These things are happening now.’ Such immediacy it has always had for attentive readers, and so it can reveal to us in our own twentieth-century world the present reality of the conflict between the kingdom of the world and the kingdom of our Lord.”     [from I SAW HEAVEN OPENED: THE MESSAGE OF  REVELATION, by Michael Wilcock, 1975]

This appears to be a slightly different way of looking at the passage. Wilcock is not declaring that everything happened back in 70 AD, but he seems to pointing to an eternal “now.” The problem is that I don’t really see where he will go with this interpretation. The only way I can see the rest of Revelation being interpreted in an eternal “now” is for it all to be totally allegorical, which I can’t go along with. 

The other implication in Wilcock’s point of view is that there is a war, or “conflict,” between the world and the Kingdom of God; but he seems to be saying that it started after Christ declared the Kingdom. It seems to me that the “conflict” started in Genesis, right after the Garden of Eden. It certainly ramped up after the Resurrection of Jesus, but Jesus defeated Satan before He declared the Kingdom, which, to me, indicates an ongoing “conflict.”

“John writes that the events that constitute the revelation must ‘soon take place.’ That almost 2,000 years of church history have passed and the end has not yet come poses a problem for some. One solution is to understand ‘soon’ in the sense of suddenly, or without delay once the appointed time arrives. Another approach is to interpret it in terms of the certainty of the events in question. The suggestion that John may be employing the formula of 2 Pet 3:8 (‘With the Lord a day is like a thousand years’) involves the Seer in a verbal scam. Others believe that the coming crisis was not the consummation of history but the persecution of the church. Indeed, that did take place before long. Yet another approach is that for the early Christians the end of the present world-order had already begun with the resurrection of Jesus and would be consummated with his universal recognition — an event John believed to be imminent. While it is certainly true that in one sense the kingdom of God is a present reality, that still does not answer the problem of the extended delay in the final consummation.

“The most satisfying solution is to take the express ‘must soon take place’ in a straightforward sense, remembering that in the prophetic outlook the end is always imminent. Time as chronological sequence is of secondary concern in prophecy. This perspective is common to the entire NT. Jesus taught that God would vindicate his elect without delay (Luke 18:8),  and Paul wrote to the Romans that God would ‘soon’ crush Satan under their feet (Rom 16:20).”      [from THE BOOK OF REVELATION, by Robert H. Mounce, 1977]

⁷now, will God bring about justice for His elect who cry out to Him day and night, and will He delay long for them? ⁸I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?      (Luke 18:7-8; NASB)

¹⁹For the report of your obedience has reached everyone; therefore I am rejoicing over you, but I want you to be wise in what is good, and innocent in what is evil. ²⁰The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.     (Romans 16:19-20; NASB)

Mounce’s son is the famous Biblical Greek scholar Bill Mounce, but while he does pay lip-service to the meaning of en tachei, he doesn’t look at it seriously.  Even “remembering that in the prophetic outlook the end is always imminent” and that “time as chronological sequence is of secondary concern in prophecy” doesn’t fix taking the “straightforward sense” of the passage in English.

More than that, the passage from Luke is not Jesus saying that God will be bringing Revelation-level wrath to the world in the near future. He is talking about individual believers who “cry out to Him day and night” for individual justice. In the same vein, the Romans quote is not Paul saying that God will bring the Revelation-level wrath to the first century to crush Satan under the Roman believer’s feet…I wish it did mean that, we would be past the Millennium and in the New Heavens and New Earth by now. The Romans quote is, again, about individual believers and their conquest over sin. I’m a nobody and Robert Mounce was a very well-known commentator; if I can see the context of these passages, then why was it a problem for Mounce?

“The things which must shortly come to pass…” Scholars generally assume that this means (1) either that all of Revelation was fulfilled within a very short time after John wrote, or (2) that such events as ‘the thousand years,’ and the final judgment were mistakenly believed by the apostle to lie in the near future. We simply cannot believe that either proposition is true. Caird declared that all of the events John prophesied were ‘expected to be accomplished quickly in their entirety.’ Even the respected Foy E. Wallace, Jr., wrote that, ‘The word shortly denotes immediacy; the events applied to them, not to centuries after their time, and even yet to come.’ The objection to the view in (1) is twofold: first, many of the events foretold in Revelation, notable the final judgment, did not take place ‘shortly’; and secondly, it is incorrect to suppose that the holy apostles of Christ erroneously taught that the end of all things would occur soon. It may be freely admitted that they may indeed have been mistaken in thinking such a thing; but, in fairness, it must be admitted that none of them either implied or declared the Second Advent to be an event in the immediate future. The statement before us teaches no such thing. The meaning of it is the same as when Jesus said, ‘The kingdom of God is at hand,’ meaning that the beginning of it was near at hand. Furthermore, the declaration of John in 4:1 that some of the things he prophesied were to ‘come to pass hereafter’ categorically refutes such views.”

This is John 4:1:

So then, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that He was making and baptizing more disciples than John    (John 4:1; NASB)

I double-checked this reference and it definitely says “John 4:1.” I did a search on the phrase “come to pass hereafter” and there is nothing from John. I looked at the first verse of the fourth chapter of each of the Gospels;I looked at the first verse of every chapter of John; I looked at the 14th chapter of John, and didn’t find the phrase in any of them. I read through the whole fourth chapter of John and did not find that phrase. The closest thing to it was 4:23:

But a time is coming, and even now has arrived, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.     (John 4:23; NASB)

Other than this error, I pretty much agree with the author, except maybe the phrase “the beginning of [the Kingdom of God] was near at hand.” I firmly believe that the Kingdom of God came into existence on this earth when Jesus spoke it into existence. Not the “beginning,” but the whole thing. The form of the Kingdom is different than it will be in the Millennium when Jesus is here on earth in His glorified body. But the Kingdom has definitely been in effect all this time. When you belong to it, you know it’s there, and, you tend to recognize other citizens when you meet them.

Let’s finish the quote:

“Regarding the view in (2), we heartily agree with McGuiggan who said:

‘The claim is made that the early church believed that the second coming was near in time; but this is just not true. They may have lived aware of the possibility of his coming soon, but that they believed he was coming is not at all established by the NT.’

“Furthermore, such a figure as reigning with Christ ‘a thousand years’ could not possibly have been written by one who believed the end of the world would occur in a few weeks. No matter what view of the prophecy is taken, the extensive treatment of the Second Advent and accompanying judgment of all mankind absolutely forbids the notion that all of this great prophecy has already been fulfilled.”      [from  REVELATION (the 12th volume in JAMES BURTON COFFMAN COMMENTARIES, by James Burton Coffman, 1979]

Coffman is spot on about the Early Church in my opinion. 

“‘Even the things which must shortly come to pass,’ clearly refutes the futurist view that John was writing about things to transpire immediately prior to Jesus’ second coming. On the contrary, he is writing of things in the near future — the crises through which the saints were soon to pass. He repeatedly affirmed this imminence of the things to come, saying: ‘for the time is at hand’ (v.3), ‘the things with must shortly come to pass’ (22:6), and again, ‘for the time is at hand’ (22:10). The Revelation begins and closes with an assurance of immediacy of things to come, even though the book does deal with the final judgment and the new order of things beyond the judgment, which were in the distant future and are yet to come (20:11; 21:8); but the major portion of the revelation pertained to things at hand, events soon to transpire.     [from REVELATION: AN INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY, by Homer Haily, 1979]

This is a partial preterist view and one that I cannot agree with. But, I think it will start to become clearer when we move into chapter four and beyond of Revelation.

“The purpose of the revelation is that Jesus may show his servants what must soon take place; the imminent fulfillment of the divine plan, of which Jesus had given advance warning, according to the synoptic gospels, on the Mount of Olives…But the scenes and events which John goes on to describe are repetitive and jump back and forth in time; as they stand they cannot be made to fit a linear time-scale. He presents not a detailed forecast or events like a political commentator, but the invisible relentless self-assertion of God’s justice and its implication for his people, in a series of symbolic tableaux and dramatic scenes, which may, however, contain much historical reference and political perception.”

I’m not sure that this criticism of Revelation is true. When casually reading it I’ve never felt like I was being jumped around in time. I’m aware that there are commentators who think that the sequence is: seal-trumpet-bowl-seal-trumpet-bowl-seal-trumpet-bowl, rather than seal-seal-seal-trumpet-trumpet-trumpet-bowl-bowl-bowl, but I don’t think I agree with that. Hopefully it will become clearer as we look in depth at those parts.

“Did John expect the imminent end of the world? It depends on whether we mean the end of the physical universe, or the end of the present world-order. The OT prophets predicted the latter in the language of the former: the sun darkened and the stars falling — demolition of the old structures to make way for a new order on earth.  In NT times the physical language was often taken literally, but the concern was still social rather than physical;  cf. II Peter 3^11-13.   

¹⁰But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be discovered [burned up]. ¹¹Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, ¹²looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! ¹³But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.     (2 Peter 3:11-13; NASB)

I totally disagree that Revelation or any prophecy is describing us moving towards a “new order on earth” forming instead of the “end of the physical universe.” And I certainly don’t buy that the 2 Peter quote is referencing “social” change; it sounds more like total, physical destruction to me, followed by the “new heavens and a new earth”.

“For Christians the end of the world in this social sense had already begun with the resurrection of Jesus and would be consummated, after various signs had happened, in his universal recognition (see on 1⁷).”

Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen       (Revelation 1:7; NASB)

The end of the world in a “social sense”? In the last 2000 years social ends of the world have happened over and over. We’re in the middle of one right now.

I’m uncomfortable with the phrase “and would be consummated, after various signs had happened”. What signs? The destruction of the planet as Peter described? The darkening of the sun and moon and the stars falling from the sky like Jesus described? These certainly would be “various signs”! But again, not in the “social sense”! 

“It was this that John believed was imminent, in contrast (we suspect) with many of his hearers who assumed from Jesus’ own apocalypse that the end was not yet; cf. Luke’s version (21^9,12). 

⁸And He said, “See to it that you are not misled; for many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not go after them. ⁹And when you hear of wars and revolts, do not be alarmed; for these things must take place first, but the end will not follow immediately.” ¹⁰Then He continued by saying to them, ‘Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, ¹¹and there will be massive earthquakes, and in various places plagues and famines; and there will be terrible sights and great signs from heaven. ¹²But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, turning you over to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors on account of My name…¹⁸And yet not a hair of your head will perish. ¹⁹By your endurance you will gain your lives. ²⁰But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. ²¹Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are inside the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; ²²because the are days of punishment, so that all things which have been written will be fulfilled. ²³Woe to those women who are pregnant, and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people; ²⁴and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.    (Luke 21:8-12,18-24; NASB)

How insulting to suggest that John believed in something that clearly Jesus did not say (and if He did say it, John could easily have included it in his Gospel), something that the other believers were smart enough not to believe. Here in Luke, just like in Matthew, Jesus starts laying out an outline of what will be seen before the end. Unlike in Matthew, this first part appears to describe the destruction of Jerusalem. I’ve been told that when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, the Christians left the city before it happened, following Jesus’ instructions. I’ve also been told that the Jews hated the Christians for leaving.

The next part of Luke sounds more like the next part of Matthew, describing the darkened sun and moon and the stars falling from the sky, etc. ending with the coming of the Son of Man. Of course John was aware of all these things that had to happen before the end.

“He tells them that the expected signs have already been set in motion by the Lamb’s victory (ch. 6), and the climax in the ‘desolating sacrilege’ (ch. 13; the ‘abomination of desolation’ of Daniel) and the coming of the Son of man (19¹¹) is at hand. But it is clear from the epilogue (22⁶) that his expectation centers on the person from whom the final events devolve. His coming must mean the end of the world which rejects him — in which the churches are in danger of being included. It is the dismantling of this human world which, as in the OT prophets, the cosmic darkenings and demolitions represent. The end of the universe is another matter: according to ch. 20 the Son of man’s coming is followed by a thousand-year reign on earth.”      [from  REVELATION, by John P. M. Sweet, 1979]

Oh my. A really meaningless outline of what Sweet sees as the events of the Revelation, leading to the line: “the end of the world which rejects him — in which the churches are in danger of being included.” He seems not to have noticed that the churches were never mentioned in Revelation after the third chapter. And then he can’t quite envision the end of the universe. At least he dropped the idea of a “social” new earth.

We’ll end it here today. Next time we’ll start off in the 1980’s where we’ll start to see a major resurgence of preterism.