The question has been raised often about the "near" & the "shortly" of Revelation where John refers to the events of Revelation as being “near’’ (Rev.1:3; 22:10) and coming “shortly (1:1; 22:6 NKJV). Many hold that the futurist/pre-tribulation position doesn't hold water because of these two terms and they say these events must have been fulfilled in AD. 70, since two thousand plus years is a long time later.



Response from Dr. Norman Giesler in his Systematic Theology.



First, the word translated shortly (1:1; 22:6 NKJV) is tachei, which is from the same root as tachu and also means “swiftly” or “speedily.” As such, it refers to a sudden but not necessarily soon event.



Second, near (1:3) is translated from the word engus, which means near or at hand.” This is a relative term like short and long, of which one can ask, how near? Compared to what? As measured by whom? What is long to us is short for God (2 Peter 3:8), and, furthermore, there are clear biblical examples where a “short” time was actually long for us. Hebrews 10:37, written almost two thousand years ago, says Jesus will come “in just a very little while” and He has not yet returned. Case in point – Haggai 2:6-7 says the time from his day (c. 500 B.C.) to the glorious rebuilt temple at Christ’s return is only a “little while.” Even to the First Coming of Christ this was five hundred years; the prophecy will not be completely fulfilled until the Second Coming, which is already over twenty-five hundred years.



Third, if preteristic reasoning is valid - that is, if these terms mean an event in the near future (e.g., A.D. 70), then moderate preterism is false, since it believes that the Second Coming and resurrection passages (Rev. 19 - 20) were not fulfilled in the first century.



Peace & Grace,

We sometimes get so caught up in the Micro of word meanings we miss the bigger picture of what the statement is actually saying.



This phrase does not mean it will be done soon as in close to the time that the prophecy was given.



Actually this phrase means it will be done "QUICKLY when GOD does it"…



that is when GOD begins to do this which HE has prophesied it will come to pass very swiftly indeed.



Which is typical of many prophecies in the Word of GOD.





This verse is often misrepresented by those who wish to believe that GOD does not fulfill Scripture literally.



So they can continue in their self deception of the historical view of all was fulfilled in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Roman army.



Of course they overlook one obvious fatal flaw in this view which is that Rome destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.



But Jesus does not give John the Revelation of Jesus the Christ until 90 AD some 20 yrs after the destruction of Jerusalem.



SO while the prophecies of the Book of Revelation are all future as of 90 AD which means the destruction of Jerusalem in 7O AD can not possibly fulfill any of them for it was already history at the time theses Prophecies were given.



GB oc

the "near" you speak of is very very near. I read on a website that armageddon will begin in the hebrew year of 5766 translated into 2006.Or it might begin next year.It also said that the master was coming back from exile. Note the word exile. Antichrist. this guy will make a 7 year peace treaty with Israel,but,in the middle of it all,it says he declares he's god,then everything spirals downward from there.

The website I got this stuff from uses hebrew translations. here's the link,www.exodus2006.com

Uncorrupt,



It was nice of God to let the web site owners know of His time table.



Actually, the anti-christ won't make the seven year peace treaty, he will "confirm" (Daniel 9:27)an all ready established treaty, which is not working or currently ineffective. There is a possibly that one of the last three treaties that Israel has entered into could be the one that the anti-christ confirms. I guess we'll have to wait and see.



Peace & Grace,

SonofAslan: If you had never heard of premillennial, pretribulation dispensationalism and its teachings and you began reading the Book of Revelation, what would you think "soon" meant? God is not the God of confusion. He gave us language so that He could communicate with us--in words we would clearly understand. When He communicates with us He does not use words that mean one thing to Him and another thing to us. My point is this: Do we allow the Scriptures to say what they plainly say and build our theology upon that or do we redefine simple words with simple meanings in order to make Scripture fit our preconceived ideas? Why would God say "soon" when He meant "later"--much later? Why would God say "at hand" when He meant a "long time hence?" God is bound by time in the sense that He is bound by time statements that He Himself made. Else He's a liar. (Note Proverbs 13:12 "Hope deferred makes the heart sick.") Furthermore, Peter (2 Peter 3:8) is writing of scoffers in the last days--Peter's day (See Hebrews 1). It was these first-century scoffers who were ridiculing the teachings of the apostles and disciples about the Lord's soon Parousia. Peter is assuring his fellow Christians in 3:8 that God is faithful and His promises are sure. What He promises, He will do--in His time. He does not live in the constrictions of time. We feel and experience time passing. He does not. If we could live through one thousand years, we would realize the great length of that time. God does not. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He sees the beginning from the end and the end from the beginning. But when He commits Himself to a certain time frame (e.g. "soon," "at hand," "near," etc.), he will work within the constrictions He Himself has ordained. Else how can we ever trust Him? Also, if futurists wish to press this verse (2 Peter 3:8) beyond its intended meaning, I have a question: Could not their literal thousand-year reign of Christ on earth really only last one day!? A good test is this: If you believe in a two-sided statement, does your belief in one aspect make the other aspect absurd? In other words, if God says something is near but it is actually far, when He says something is far, does He actually mean near? Words mean things. We must always take them, whenever possible, at their simplest, clearest meaning. Does one now have to read the Bible and stop every time he sees the words "near," "at hand," "about to," "shortly," "soon," etc. and stop to interpret them lest they really do not mean what they say? Or do they only depart from their most common, normal meanings when dealing with prophecy? I do a lot of witnessing to Jehovah's Witnesses. I have challenged them to explain to me why their translators have gone through the Word of God and redefined or added words in order to support their contention that Jesus is not God. They play loose and fast with the Scriptures only in their passages that deal with the deity of Christ! I challenge futurists to tell me why their teachers have done the same thing in order to keep premillennial, pretribulation dispensationalism afloat. I was a full-blown dispensationalist but I am not any longer. I decided to let the Bible speak for itself. In other words, I did exegesis (reading out of the Scriptures) and not eisegesis (reading into the Scriptures). I challenge everyone to do the same. Does the Bible really say what you think it says? "Let God be true but every man a liar." (Rom.3:4) Judy

OldCoot: You start from the ASSUMPTION that John wrote the Revelation in AD 90. Are you sure? FullPreterist

Hello fullpreterist,



I appreciate your reply, even if I can't fully agree with all that you stated. It's been awhile since I have been on the forums here, mainly because I saw how most of what goes on is cyclic discussions, without much gain, other than who can out argue the other. But because I got a notification in my email of an update I figured I would stop by and see what was said. I had to go to the top and reread my original post.



To answer your first question, "if I had never heard of pre...." in english, soon means what our current definition has it to mean typically a brief period of time. But since the New Testament was not written with today's definitions and for that matter wasn't even written in English, but Greek, I would have to try to ascertain what it meant to it's original hearers.



Also, we are ignoring what the subject of "near" is describing. In Revelation 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.

The whole phrase is "for the time is near." May I suggest that the usage of the word "time" in this context refers to epochs, eras or seasons. The next great epoch on God's redemptive history is imminent, but even though Christ's coming is the next anticipated event, it could be delayed, even to the point that people even question whether it will truly take place or not (Mt. 24:36-39; 2 Peter 3:3-4), yet it is still imminent (the time is near).



So whether it is soon, near or at hand, it is most definately imminent, because when the King appears His kingdom will truly be "at hand."



Peace & Grace,

Hi SonofAslan (and OldCoot): Do we strain at a gnat but swallow a camel? Why is there this controversy anyway over these simple terms that in any other context would be easily understood? Why do translators still use our modern terms of soonness and nearness to translate these Greek terms if they are so ambiguous? They still use those terms because they convey the best translation of the Greek!



Did not Charles Ryrie himself clearly state: "Dispensationalism (by extension futurism for you nondispensationalists) claims to employ principles of literal, plain or normal, interpretation CONSISTENTLY." (Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, p. 20--I have this book, by the way--It was a required textbook at Grace Theological Seminary from which I graduated). Ryrie goes on to say:



The second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism

is the matter of PLAIN interpretation as indicative of a

dispensational approach to the interpretation of the

Scriptures. And it is this very CONSISTENCY--the strength

of dispensational interpretation--that irks the

nondispensationalist . . . (Ibid., p. 86)



In reality, it is the INCONSISTENCY of the "literal or plain interpretation" that irks nondispensationalists! Where is the consistency when they deny the "literal, plain or normal" understanding of simple terms as "soon," "near," "at hand," and "shortly?"



Matthew 24:33 gives us a clearer understanding of the word "near" when Jesus adds "right at the door." If someone tells me that their arrival time is "near"; in fact, they are "right at the door," I know they are very close! Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 "My time is at hand [near]"--his trial and subsequent crucifixion were mere hours away! Do futurists have a trouble understanding the usage here? No. Because understanding it so does not affect their eschatological system!



In Matthew 26:45 (cf. 26:46-47), Jesus, just before He was betrayed said: "Behold, the hour is at hand [near] and the Son of Man is being betrayed in the hands of sinners." Futurists take these words here in their plain, normal sense. Do these clear expressions change from their common, everyday meanings only when they are used of last days events? How peculiar!



In John 2:13, Jesus went to Jerusalem because "the Passover of the Jews was at hand." Here "at hand" means "at hand"--even to futurists!



John 7:2--"Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was at hand." Any problem for futurists here? Nope. "At hand" is allowed to mean "at hand." Interesting.



Another question for futurists--why can the "quickly" of Revelation 11:14 mean "rapidly approaching" but Jesus' coming in Revelation 2:16,3:11, 22:7, 12, 20 cannot?



In Revelation 12:12 the devil is said to have "only a short time." Interestingly, Walvoord, a staunch dispensationalist [The Revelation of Jesus Christ--another book I possess and have read], says this "short time" means not very long--no more than 3.5 years! Why the inconsistency? The meanings of words are changed not out of good hermeneutical principle but out of the necessity to uphold one's preconceived eschatological viewpoint.

I could cite many other glaring inconsistencies in the futurist camp regarding time reference words, but time and space won't allow it. I would, however, like to add the following verses:



John 11:29--"She rose QUICKLY, and was coming to him."

John 11:31--"Mary rose up QUICKLY and went out."

John 13:27--"What you do, do quickly."

Revelation 3:11: "I am coming quickly."

Revelation 11:14: "The second woe is past; behold, the third

woe is coming quickly."



I have five children. When I tell them to come quickly, I don't mean "When you do come, come on the run!" No! I mean "come NOW!" While this term does have an aspect of quickness, it also very much conveys urgency or immediacy! Everybody understands this is normal everyday communication. This is how God gave His word to us--so that we would understand--not that we would be confused. Why would He not clearly state "far" if that's what He meant? Why would He not clearly state "later" if that's what He meant? There are Greek terms to convey those meanings.



In Christ, FP