DIPLOPIC TENSION IN REVELATION?

Part 3 of Eschatological Tension in Progressive Dispensationalism

INTRODUCTION

In this month's Dispensationalism in Transition I will conclude my response to progressive dispensationalist Marvin Pate's chapter in the Zondervan CounterPoint book: "Four Views on the Book of Revelation." Unlike mainstream, bookstore-dominating dispensationalists such as Hal Lindsey, Pate admits: "The Apocalypse is arguably the most controversial book in the Bible. . . . A hermeneutical thicket awaits the interpreter of Revelation" (C. Marvin Pate, in Pate, ed., Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 172, 173).

To read Lindsey and old-line dispensational friends you would think interpreting Revelation was as easy as picking up your newspaper, clipping out articles, attaching them to darts, throwing the darts at an open copy of Revelation, and then applying using the news clippings to interpret the text where the dart hit. For instance, Lindsey's Introduction to his commentary on Revelation opens with these words:

"The information in the book you're about to read is more up-to-date than tomorrow's newspaper. I can say this with confidence because the facts and predictions in these next few pages are all taken from the greatest source-book of current events in the world.... I personally tend to think that God might utilize in his judgments some modern devices of man which the Apostle John was at a loss for words to describe nineteen centuries ago! In the case just mentioned, the locusts might symbolize an advanced kind of helicopter. This is just one example of the fast-moving, contemporary, and often deductive manner with which I have chosen to approach the Book of Revelation" (Lindsey, There's A New World Coming: A Prophetic Odyssey (Santa Ana, CA: Vision House, 1973).

Had only some of the world's great biblical scholars employed Lindsey's approach! But, alas, those studious and learned men falter, stumble, and scratch their heads:

Terry: "No portion of the Holy Scripture has been the subject of so much controversy and of so many varying interpretations." (Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), p. 466)

Reuss: "Ideas of the Apocalypse are so widely different that a summary notice of the exegetical literature, mingling all together, would be inexpedient." (Eduard Wilhelm Reuss, History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1884), 155)

Warfield: Revelation is "the most difficult book of the Bible: it has always been the most variously understood, the most arbitrarily interpreted, the most exegetically tortured." (B. B. Warfield, "The Book of Revelation" in Philip Schaff, ed., A Religious Encyclopedia, 3 vols., (NY: Funk and Wagnalls, 1883), 2:80)

Vincent: "This document has given rise to voluminous controversy." (Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, vol.2: "The Writings of John" (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rep. 1985 [1887]), 16)

Swete: "To comment on this great prophecy is a harder task than to comment on a Gospel, and he who undertakes it exposes himself to the charge of presumption. I have been led to venture upon on what I know to be dangerous ground." (Henry B. Swete, Commentary on Revelation (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 1906 [rep. 1977]), p. xii)

Beckwith: "No other book, whether in sacred or profane literature, has received in whole or in part so many different interpretations. Doubtless no other book has so perplexed biblical students throughout the Christian centuries down to our own times." (John T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John: Studies in Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1919 [1967]), 1)

Robertson: "Perhaps no single book in the New Testament presents so many and so formidable problems as the Apocalypse of John." ( A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman, 1933), 269)

Beasley-Murray: "Revelation is probably the most disputed and difficult book in the New Testament." (G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, in R. E. Clements and Matthew Black, eds., New Century Bible (London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1974), p. 5)

Ladd: "Revelation is the most difficult of all New Testament books to interpret." (George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 10)

Richardson: "The book of Revelation is not an easy book to interpret. There is a certain obscurity about the book." (Donald W. Richardson, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: An Interpretation (Richmond, Vir.: John Knox, 1964), 9)

Walvoord: "Attempts at its exposition are almost without number, yet there continues the widest divergence of interpretation." (John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966), 7)

Morris: "Some of the problems of this book are enormously difficult and I certainly have not the capacity to solve them." Indeed, it is "by common consent one of the most difficult of all the books of the Bible." (Leon Morris,The Revelation of St. John (Tyndale New Testament Commentary) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 13, 15)

Johnson: For "the modern reader" Revelation "is the most obscure and controversial book in the Bible." ( Alan F. Johnson, Revelation (The Bible Study Commentary) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 9.)

It is refreshing, then, to read progressive dispensational authors admitting what the rest of the biblical world knows: Interpreting Revelation is a difficult task. Now let us get down to serious work before us. In Pate's conclusion to our debate book, he makes two closing remarks requiring our consideration.

REVELATIONAL DIPLOPIA

First, Pate writes (p. 173): "It seems clear that the central problem of the discussion is: How are we to understand symbolic literature? Or more precisely, does the genre of prophetic/apocalyptic require single, dual, or multiple fulfillments?" He then notes the contribution of his progressive dispensationalism to the Revelation debate: "The progressive dispensationalist sees both perspectives [preterist and futurist] as viable: There is partial fulfillment (the past) as well as final realization (the future) regarding those things in history. Thus the symbolism of Revelation attests to dual fulfillment." Thus, Revelational judgments occur TWICE — once in the first century, as preliminary and partial fulfillments, and once again in the eschatological end time as final and complete fulfillment.

Although progressive dispensationalism makes great strides toward a more tolerable eschatological analysis (leaving all newspapers aside), it still falls short of acceptability. In attempting to combine "the best of both worlds" (as it were), progressive dispensationalism appears contrived and forced. And by admitting the credibility of ANY first century fulfillment, it effectively gives away the game to the preterist. I will state some problems with dual fulfillment.

In the first place, dual fulfillment is not textually demanded. Nothing in the text suggests the possibility of double-fulfillment. It is simply a conjectural faith-leap to get around the obvious: the events occur in the first century. It would be much different if there were suggestions in the text that moved us to consider double-fulfillment. But there are none.

In the second place, dual fulfillment not only lacks textual warrant, it positively overrides the textually deduced time-frame expectations within Revelation. The beauty of the preterist position — indeed, the very WARRANT for preterism — is the obvious demands of the text itself. Notice how John relates his time expectation:

(1) He qualifies the book by asserting in various ways its nearness:

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. 2:16: To one of the first century churches, Jesus warns: "Repent therefore; or else I am coming to you QUICKLY, and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth."

Rev. 3:10-11: To one of the first century churches, Jesus promises: "Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is ABOUT TO COME upon the whole world, to test those who dwell upon the earth. "'I AM COMING QUICKLY; hold fast what you have, in order that no one take your crown. '"

Rev. 22:6-7: "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. And behold, I AM COMING QUICKLY. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book."

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. '"

Rev. 22:12: "Behold, I AM COMING QUICKLY, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done."

Rev. 22:20: "He who testifies to these things says, 'Yes, I AM COMING QUICKLY.' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."

No amount of "double-talk" can overthrow the emphases in these statements: Revelation will occur soon in John's day. Where in these time statements do we see ANY exegetical indication of a possible double-fulfillment?

(2) John's book is written as an "occasional letter," that is, as a letter relevant to its original audience regarding occasions it will face John himself is already exiled to Patmos during a "tribulation" he shares in with his readers (Rev. 1:9). Surely he will not AGAIN in the future be so exiled! He is writing to historical first century churches (Rev. 1:4, 11; chs. 2-3) about problems he and they face together.

He comforts his original audience regarding THEIR martyrs and what those martyrs should expect in terms of temporal vindication:

Rev. 6:9-11: "And when He broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, 'How long, O Lord, holy and true, wilt Thou refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?' And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for A LITTLE WHILE LONGER, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also."

His revelational drama speaks of the end of any DELAY in the events: Rev. 10:6: "He swore by Him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and the things in it, and the earth and the things in it, and the sea and the things in it, that THERE SHALL BE DELAY NO LONGER." John wrote this nearly 2000 years ago!

He speaks of the FIRST CENTURY TEMPLE AS STILL STANDING: Rev. 11: 1: "And there was given me a measuring rod like a staff; and someone said, 'Rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those who worship in it.'"

He makes explicit reference to the Roman empire and its first seven emperors: Rev. 17:9-10: "Here is the mind which has wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits, and they are seven kings; five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet come; and when he comes, he must remain a little while." Rome (under which John wrote and his audience lived) was universally acknowledged as "the city on seven hills." Rome's first five emperors are "fallen" (dead): Julius Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius. The sixth now "is": Nero. The seventh one "has not yet come; and when comes, he must remain a little while": Galba (reigned: June, A.D. 68 to January, A.D. 69).

(3) Furthermore, how can we seriously claim that all the many and varied Revelational phenomena occur TWICE? Are there really two Beasts? Two false prophets? Two harlots? Two groups of 144,000? Two double-prophets prophesying to Jerusalem? On and on we could go. To ask the question, it seems to me, is to answer. It strains credulity to require all the various events in Revelation to appear twice in history — and in the same regions!

How can John's readers expect a double-fulfillment of these events — in light of these time delimiters and historically relevant data? And how can WE — when we see the perfect first century fit? Progressive dispensationalism is aware of the serious problem (first century relevance). But their fixing the problem reminds us of the Russian Mir space station: a dangerous patch job that can barely remain in orbit.

REVELATIONAL DELAY

Second, Pate writes (p. 174): "A second key issue generated by Revelation is a theological one — the 'delay' of the Parousia. This is the ultimate question raised by Revelation 1:1,3, with reference to the nearness of the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Apocalypse.... How are we to understand Jesus' and John's predictions about the signs of the times culminating in the Second Coming?... The progressive dispensationalist argues that there was partial actualization of Jesus' statements surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which serves as the backdrop for their final fulfillment at the end of history."

Interestingly, the EXEGETICAL "problem" presented by John's references to Christ's "coming," is solved in non-exegetical and purely "THEOLOGICAL" fashion. Pate's theological maneuver here is to suggest an eschatological delay by means of an already / not yet eschatological tension. Unfortunately, for progressive dispensationalism, there is NO DELAY in John's expectations. John looks to something historically distinct from what the progressive dispensationalist expects. Though it is true the Lord WILL RETURN at some future date in his glorious Second Advent which will end world-history, that is NOT the issue before John in Revelation. He is distinctly concerned with the Jewish and Roman persecutions of his first century flock. THAT is why he writes this "occasional letter" to his congregations.

I agree that similarities exist between the A.D. 70 destruction of the Temple and the future Second Advent: Both are divine judgments; both are brought about by the Son of Man

himself; both are prophetically expected; both conclude important periods of redemptive history. But I cannot see how a book that specifically demands the events occur "soon" can have any direct relevance to that distantly future Second Advent. We might learn something about the Second Advent by comparing A.D. 70 phenomena with it, but we cannot simply read the Second Advent into those phenomena. To read that future Second Advent into John's specific, clear, objective, time-delimited statements is to do an injustice to Scripture.

IF John had NOT limited his expectations to his own generation, then we might suggest a distantly future fulfillment. But he did declare these limitations! The Second Advent is found in passages that do NOT limit the expectation to the first century, texts such as Acts 1:11, 1 Corinthians 15:20ff, and so forth. Our interest in the Second Advent should not lead us to discover it where it does not exist. That seems to be as serious a problem as not expecting it at all.

Consequently, progressive dispensationalism helps us expose the errors in old-line dispensationalism. Older dispensationalists are "so futurely oriented they are no present good" in Revelation (to reframe the concern that some Christians are "so heavenly minded they are no earthly good"). But progressive dispensationalism also shows us the error of theological assertion divorced from exegetical derivation. I commend the noble concern of progressive dispensationalists to defend the integrity of Scripture against liberal charges that Jesus and John were mistaken in their prophecies in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation. But their resolution to the problem is faulty itself.

CONCLUSION

Revelation will long remain a battle ground for eschatological systems. But the battles will not be won by either overlooking the time-frame statements (as does older dispensationalism) or by doubling the significance of the prophecies (as does newer dispensationalism). Though many evangelicals are not familiar with the preterist position, it has the exegetical goods on the other views. And ought, therefore, to interest every Christian who wants a better understanding of Scripture.

I am encouraged at the resurgence of evangelical preterism, am delighted at the decline of older dispensationalism, and am excited about newer dispensationalism's concessions to covenant theology. Each of these developments will doubtlessly lead the Hal Lindseys and Dave Hunts of the evangelical world to declare: "These are signs of worsening conditions in the church and therefore of the nearing of the Rapture." I believe, however, that these are signs of the strengthening of the church and the readying of Christianity for a more biblically based understanding of eschatology — which speaks of our future.

The preterist view is now available in a debate format from one of the world's largest evangelical publishers (Zondervan: "Four Views on the Book of Revelation"). And more books are on their way. Perhaps soon the market will fall out from under the bumper sticker industry that thrives on such noteworthy statements as: "In case of Rapture this car will be unmanned." (I saw a secular version of this the other day: "In case of Rapture appoint a designated sinner"). The 20th century is known as the century of the dominance of secular humanism. I believe this catastrophe is directly related to the fact that it is also the century of the dominance of dispensationalism. Retreat leads to defeat.

If you have a Christian talk radio station and would like to have me interviewed on it, please contact me at the e-mail address above. I have often found remarkable acceptance of preterism when it is carefully presented — especially in light of the continuing failed expectations of the dispensational prophetic doomsayers. I am also available for occasional conferences.

ANNOUNCEMENT AND SPECIAL OFFERS

Order from me at:

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

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 July for $16.99, upon publication I will send the book and a free tape on millennialism. (This book will be a little delayed in terms of its original release date. We are all just now finishing our responses and sending them into the editor.)

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).

For information on my correspondence course on Righteous Writing, contact me at: KennethGentry@Compuserve.Com. We could use some more trained writers!

 

END