REVELATION 1:19 AND THE MEANING OF REVELATION

Part 2 of Eschatological Tension in Progressive Dispensationalism

Last month I introduced my current series which will critique progressive dispensationalism's use of eschatological tension (already/not yet) to explain the Book of Revelation. As I noted then and as I mention ANYtime I deal with progressive dispensationalism: This new, improved dispensationalism is far superior to its genealogical predecessors: Scofieldian classic dispensationalism and Ryrian revised dispensationalism.

Though representatives of older dispensationalism are "kicking against the pricks," the handwriting is on the wall: Out with the old, in with the new. Older forms of dis- pensationalism are dying in the academic world. In fact, the OBITUARY of classic dispensationalism has already been written. In an upcoming book from Zondervan, progressive dispensationalist Craig Blaising writes:

"Beginning in the late 1980's, publications began to appear marking the complete abandonment of classical dispensationalism's systemic dualism for a holistic approach. This approach, known as progressive dispensationalism, has preserved many valuable insights from traditional dispensational readings of Scripture recognizing spiritual, material, political, and ethnic purposes in the divine plan yet without bifurcating them into unreconcilable programs.... Although dispensational apocalypticism has received much attention in the media and in studies of popular religion, where it continues to thrive, it has become peripheral to the point of absence in dispensaitonal biblical scholarship. This is because of popular apocalypticism's loose relationship to the literary and historical study of Scripture and because of ongoing evangelical scholarly work on the interpretation of biblical apocalyptic. Furthermore, popular apocalypticism's penchant for relating future events in Scripture to headline news and even making predictions about how, when, and where future events will be fulfilled, including the date of Christ's return, has discredited it in the minds of many" (in Bock, ed., "Three Views of the End of History and Beyond").

Unfortunately, the ghost of dispensationalisms past still rattle their chains in Christian bookstores with their mass-market appeal to the National Enquirer market.

In this installment of our newsletter I will critique C. Marvin Pate's understanding of the first chapter of Revelation. Obviously, Revelation is very important for eschatology. Consequently, the progressive dispensational approach to Revelation has much potential for exposing dispensational problems.

Pate agrees with me as seeing Revelation 1 as the key to understanding Revelation's prophecy. But we have a major dis- agreement as to what the evidence suggests. He sees the key in Revelation 1:19, which suggests to him a now/not yet historical paradigm. Let us consider his argument, show how it is fund- amentally opposed to classic and revised dispensationalism, and respond to the progressive dispensational approach to Revelation's interpretation.

I am responding to Pate's chapter in C. Marvin Pate, ed., "Four Views on the Book of Revelation" (Zondervan, 1998), a book to which I contributed a chapter. The structure of this book did not allow the various contributors to respond to each other. Consequently, my response below does not appear in the Zondervan book.

(As an historical aside, Marvin Pate has used with appreciation some of my eschatological studies in his earlier work, "Doomsday Delusions" (IVP, 1995). Because of his appreciation for my work, he invited me to contribute to the Zondervan "Four Views" book, for which I am deeply grateful. It is interesting — and encouraging — to see how the preterist argument [such as mine] is handled so very differently by the progressive dispensationalist as compared to the revised dispensationalist. I am practically written off as an eccentric with liberal tendencies by revised dispensationalist Tommy Ice in a debate book he and I are working on for Kregal.)

PATE'S NOW/NOT YET APPROACH TO REVELATION

In "Four Views on the Book of Revelation" Pate writes:

"If we rightly interpreted Revelation 1:1, 3, it sheds light on what many consider is the key verse of the book — 1:19. The threefold clause 'what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later' is correctly understood as significant for grasping the chronological outline of the Apocalypse. Many take it to refer to the past (the vision of the risen Christ, chap. 1), the present (the seven churches, chaps. 2-3), and the future (the Great Tribulation, the Parousia, the temporary messianic kingdom, and the eternal state, chaps. 4-22). Others, however perceived a twofold division in verse 19 — John is told to write what he saw (either the vision of the Son of Man in chap. 1 or, as we prefer, the vision of the whole book, cf. 1:19 with 1:11), which consists of the things that are (present) and the things that will be (future). This is how the RSV understands the verse: 'Now write what you see, what is and what is to take place hereafter" (p. 137).

His distinctive progressive dispensational approach is only vaguely hinted at here. The next paragraph opens his view more clearly to us. And this is what I want to critique and challenge. Pate continues:

"We would add the following observation to this discussion: What John refers to in verse 19 is his apocalyptic vision of the nature of reality — this age (the present) and the age to come (the future). If this suggestion is accurate, then we do indeed find in verse 19 the interpretive key to the book of Revelation. Chapters 2-3 describe the seven churches, which exist on earth in this present age. Chapters 4-5, in their vivid description of the death and resurrection of Jesus, portray the reality that the age to come has already dawned, but only in heaven. Chapters 6-18, then, depict the transition from this age to the age to come on earth, with the Great Tribulation (or the messianic woes) marking the turning point. Chapters 19-22 present the full arrival of the age to come on earth, initiated by the Parousia and manifested in the messianic reign of Christ then revealed to all."

"On this reading of 1:19, since John's tribulation (1:9) belongs to the trials of this age (chaps. 1-3), it does not seem to be understood by him as equivalent to that Great Tribulation that will mark the end of this age and the beginning of the age to come on earth (chaps. 6-18). This observation is in keeping with the pretribulational approach to Revelation. Such a view of 1:19 also provides important backing for the premillennial under- standing of the messianic kingdom — while the age to come has dawned in heaven (chaps. 4-18), it has not yet appeared on earth (chaps. 19-22)" (p. 137).

Here we may clearly discern the progressive dispensational exegetico-theological maneuver that, in effect, attempts to bring together preterism and futurism. In fact, a decade ago dis- pensationalist David L. Turner called this approach (to the Olivet Discourse, in his case) "preteristic-futurism." Unfortunately, this wedding of futurism and preterism is a shot gun wedding, not wisely entered into.

Notice that Pate sees Revelation 1:19 as "the interpretive key to the book of Revelation." By applying this key to the interpretation of Revelation, he suggests that we are presented with a blended future, a time perspective suspended in tension between that which is and that which is yet to come. I do not agree with the significance of Revelation 1:19 as an interpretive key; rather I see the opening verse to Revelation as the key. However, as a preterist I can employ the key used by the progressive dispensationalist to enter his house and spoil his goods.

Allow me, then, to critique the flow of Revelation as scene in Pate's schema of the now/not yet:

THE ALREADY

Pate begins by noting that in Revelation 2-3 John speaks to the first century Christians specifically. Virtually all commentators (excluding some idealists) recognize chapters 2 and 3 as applying to first century conditions. (Of course, through a bizarre Platonic phantasm, most old-line dispensationalists also see the seven churches as outlining the whole of church history itself. This maneuver wholly contradicts their "imminent rapture" view [if church history to the present is prophesied in the Seven Churches, how could Christ have returned 200 years ago without contradicting prophecy?] It also undercuts their futuristic approach to Revelation, for this operates on historicist principles. But I digress!)

In fact, Christ's words to the Seven Churches indicate an intimate historical knowledge of the churches in their first century settings. Most technical commentaries offer fascinating insights into the text by drawing upon archaeological and historical materials. Certainly Revelation 2 and 3 deal with first century conditions. Consequently, they speak to the present that is, the time when John wrote. That is, they speak of "the already" in Pate's "now/not yet" schema.

A potentially thorny problem arises for the dispen- sationalist in all of this. And here is where the preterist starts rummaging through the house of progressive dis- pensationalism: By allowing the features of Revelation 2 and 3 to apply to first century events, we gain insight into how OTHER features in LATER chapters may ALSO apply to the first century. For instance, John's battle scenes and cultural images in Revelation apply very easily to antiquity, rather than to the modern world. Of course, the Lindsey-type apocalyptic re-interpretation of the features of the prophecies allow horses to become tanks, locusts to become helicopters, and so forth. But once we see that first century historical phenomena can explain one portion of the book (which claims to deal with events "near" and "shortly to come to pass," Rev. 1:1, 3), then why may we not suppose that the swords, horses, breastplates, and so forth ALSO apply to ancient warfare?

The observation in the preceding paragraph is something of an indirect argument for preterism. But it does flow nicely from the realization by most commentators — and by Pate — that John DOES speak to first century events at SOME points. The preterist asks: Why not ALL? Especially since they fit the specifically revealed time frame (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10) and the local coloring of this ancient book.

THE ALREADY/NOT YET MIXTURE

Then, according to Pate, in Revelation 4-5 (the vision of the slain but living lamb) we see the significance of Christ's redemptive work as viewed from heaven. I agree with this so far. Later Pate observes:

"The classical dispensationalist relegates the events of Revelation 4-5 to the distant future. The progressive dispensationalist, however, perceives the overlapping of the two ages to be operative in John's vision of the exaltation of Christ to the throne of God. On the one hand, with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, the age to come has dawned in heaven. This is nothing less than the beginning of the fulfillment of the reign of the Davidic Messiah . . . . On the other hand, Christ's Davidic-like king- dom has not yet descended to earth (cf. Rev. 5:10b with 20:1-6). Chapters 6-19 detail the process by which that messianic kingdom will manifest itself on earth. Thus, at the time of the events of Revelation 4-5, the age to come had not been completed" (Ibid., pages 144-45).

Here we see a serious departing of progressive dis- pensational from older dispensationalisms: They clearly allow that the age to come has dawned in the incipient beginning of the Davidic kingdom in the first century. Such talk will cause classic dispensationalists of the past to roll over in their graves, just as it is causing present revised dispensationalists to roll over INTO their graves.

Unfortunately, the progressive dispensationalist tends to overlook how easily the preterist can operate within his already/not yet schema — when properly interpreted. Does not preterism teach that John wrote to contemporary Christians in their ancient circumstances? That would present the "already" angle of the "already/not yet" schema. But John's book is, after all, a PROPHECY (Rev. 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18-19) that speaks of future, or "not yet," events. Too often anti-preterists assume that preterism destroys the prophetic nature of Revelation because we assert that the events are now past. They forget that WHEN John wrote Revelation he wrote BEFORE the events of A.D. 70 that are now in OUR past. Thus, the events of Revelation were prophetic when originally written, like Isaiah 7:14 and Micah 5:2 (regarding the birth of Christ) were originally prophetic, but are now understood preteristically by all Christians.

Consequently, the "already" is historically CLOSE TO but NOT TOTALLY INDENTIFIED WITH the "not yet." John's "not yet" events will come in a few short years after he writes, but when John originally wrote, they did not yet exist upon the plane of history. So: I can (to some extent) agree that there is an already/not yet structure in Revelation. But it is an already/not yet structure governed by clear time statements as to WHEN the "not yet" will occur:

Rev. 1:1: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must SHORTLY take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John."

Rev. 1:3: "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for THE TIME IS NEAR."

Rev. 22:6: "And he said to me, 'These words are faithful and true'; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must SHORTLY take place."

Rev. 22:10: "And he said to me, 'DO NOT SEAL UP THE WORDS of the prophecy of this book, FOR the TIME IS NEAR.'"

THE ALREADY/NOT YET TURNING POINT

Then, in Revelation 6-18 Pate claims we are given a view of "the transition from this age to the age to come on earth, with the Great Tribulation . . . marking the turning point" (Ibid., p. 137).

Ironically, I find much to agree with in this statement, too. But I interpret the phenomena very differently from Pate. In other words, the progressive dispensational scheme can be used effectively against the progressive dispensationalist: The preterist holds that the great tribulation occurs in the events associated with the first century destruction of the Temple. This is why Jesus mentions "the great tribulation" (Matt. 24:21) in a passage expressly dealing with the destruction of the first century temple (Matt. 23:38-24:2) and restricted to his own "generation" (Matt. 24:34). John does the same thing in Revelation: He speaks of the great tribulation (Rev. 7:14) in a work tied to SOON approaching events (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10).

In fact, the New Testament DOES present an already/not yet structure. And this structure does revolve around the great tribulation. But the great tribulation serving as the hinge between the already/not yet phenomena is not off in the distant future, as per progressive dispensationalism. Rather it is the fast approaching time of the destruction of the Temple in which we witness the divine setting aside of the typological, sacrificial system of the old covenant order. This is why in the A.D. 60s, the author of Hebrews speaks of the sacrificial system as "ready to disappear": "When He said, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear" (Heb. 8:13). The old covenant, Aaronic, ceremonial order erected at Sinai (Heb. 12:18-21) will SOON be replaced by the conclusive new covenant order. The final, dramatic, conclusive replacement occurs when God violently shakes heaven and earth in A.D. 70. He shakes the world so as to remove the "created things" (things created by human hands, the old covenant worship implements, such as the altar, bowl of incense, and so forth (Heb. 12:25-27; cp. 8:13-9:11).

THE NOT YET COMES

Finally, Pate notes that Revelation 19-22 exhibits "the full arrival of the age to come on earth, initiated by the Parousia and manifested in the messianic reign of Christ then revealed to all."

Again the preterist system can easily account for the already/not yet structure while upholding John's own revealed time frame ("soon" and "near," Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). As the Temple is destroyed in the first century holocaustal judgment upon Israel, the kingdom of Christ arrives in great power. This is why Jesus says in Mark 9:1: "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power." The A.D. 70 destruction of the Temple IS that coming of the kingdom "with power."

This, of course, fits nicely with the already/not yet factors in Revelation. We read of the "already" existence of the kingdom of priests in Revelation 1:6: "He HAS MADE us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father; to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." Christ preached the nearness of the kingdom (Mark 1:15). It came incipiently in his ministry (Matt. 12:28). In the destruction of Jerusalem at his behest, the "not yet" future of the kingdom comes "in power." Thus, later in Revelation 20:4d we have John's visionary portrayal of the kingdom coming in power to establish this kingdom of priests. The millennial reign of Christ began legally and incipiently in Christ's ministry in A.D. 26-30 ("already"); it is charged with dramatic public power in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 ("not yet").

CONCLUSION

Progressive dispensationalism is a far superior species of dispensationalism than the older forms that have been so popular. (The older species may be seen in Museums of Natural History, otherwise known as the "Prophecy Section" in Christian bookstores). However, in its hermeneutic principle the system contains its own seeds of destruction. Preterism can better account for the expectations than can dispensationalism, even than progressive dispensationalism.

ANNOUNCEMENT AND SPECIAL OFFER

FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION (Zondervan) is now available. I contribute the chapter on preterism. It may be ordered from me for $16.99 (request free shipping).

THREE VIEWS OF THE END OF THE MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND (Zondervan) is a Zondervan Counter Point book debating the millennial positions. I present the theonomic postmillennial position. Its projected delivery date is June, 1998. If you order this book before June for $16.99, upon publication I will send the book and a free tape on millennialism.

PERILOUS TIMES: A STUDY IN ESCHATOLOGICAL EVIL Retail: $25.95
Christian Universities Press. Hardback. Foreword: R. C. Sproul. Publication Date: Fall, 1998. I present thorough exegetical studies of five leading judgment themes of Scripture, demonstrating they are fulfilled in the first century: Daniel's Seventy Weeks (Dan. 9); The Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24); The Man of Sin (2 Thess. 2); The Beast of Revelation (Rev. 13); and the Great Harlot (Rev. 17). Send $25.00 prior to June 1, 1998 and receive upon publication an autographed copy of Perilous Times; A cassette lecture: "The Great Tribulation Is Past" (#011:4); and free shipping (except for foreign orders: add $4.00).

CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL DEBATES

New tape series ($50 for 14 tape set; $4.00 per tape): Provides an analysis and exegetical-theological critique of contemporary theological controversies that are beginning to affect and alter historic evangelical orthodoxy. A defense of historic reformed orthodoxy and an illustration of proper theological method in resolving these and like issues. Issues covered: Annihilationism (2 tapes); Abortion (1 tape); Alcoholic beverages (1 tape); Charismatic: miraculous healing and tongues (2 tapes); Creation Framework Hypothesis (2 tapes); Homosexuality (2 tapes); Hyper-preterism (1 tape); and Theonomic challenges (2 tapes).

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL: DATING THE BOOK OF REVELATION. $27.95

Full text of doctoral dissertation on Revelation's date. Includes careful exegesis of critical passages, diligent survey of scholarly literature, and meticulous search of early church fathers and Jewish and Roman historians. The book not only resolves this technical question, but provides much helpful exposition of Revelation's text itself. These provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the meaning of Revelation. "An academic work clearly argued, with full documentation and detailed footnotes on the subject" (Banner of Truth). "Convincingly demonstrates the fact the book of Revelation was written... [before] A.D. 70" (Jay E. Adams, Ph. D.). "Thorough and outstanding" (George W. Knight III, Th. D.). "Impressive job of collecting evidence.... Well researched and cogently presented" (Criswell Theological Review). "A strong case for the early external evidence" (J. P. M. Sweet, Journal of Theological Studies).

Order from me at:

Kenneth Gentry
P.O. Box 388
Placentia, CA 92871