Revelation Fulfilled by AD 70 Part 2 - How Futurists Twist the Meaning of "Soon," "Shortly," "About to be," in the Book of Revelation
(This section on OT and NT imminence is taken from my new book entitled, Armageddon Deception The Eschatology of Islam & Zionism A Biblical Response. To get the book go to: https://fullpreterism.com/product/armageddon-deception/
Introduction:
We unfortunately live in a day when your movie previews and promises of “coming soon” has more credibility than the fictional Futurist interpretations to the book of Revelation. This article will go over how Futurism has sought to explain away the doctrine of imminence throughout the book of Revelation. The imminent time texts function as book ends at the beginning of the prophecy to the end and concern “things which must be fulfilled SHORTLY” (Rev. 1:1—22:6-10, 20). We should begin by doing a study of how the OT interprets imminent time texts especially when they are mixed in with apocalyptic language. Then we can begin looking at the severe twisting of Greek words of imminency by Futurist “scholars.”
Harmonizing OT and NT apocalyptic language and imminence
I recently debated Charismatic Zionist Dr. Michael Brown on the subject of “that which is perfect” (1 Cor. 13:8-12), proving that the sign and revelatory miraculous gifts of prophecy, tongues and knowledge “ceased” in AD 70 at the “soon” Second Coming, and we are spiritually seeing His face today in the new covenant age (cf. Rev. 22:4-7).[1]
In that debate, knowing Dr. Brown is also an OT scholar, I challenged him with the fact that in the OT de-creation language was not only figurative and metaphorical, but these imminent judgments were fulfilled within the lifetimes of the prophets and their contemporaries. I will summarize his answer and then critique it, since it is applicable in harmonizing Jesus’ teaching in the Olivet Discourse with the OT prophets.
Dr. Michael Brown’s answer summarized: “OT imminence may be understood in a few ways. First, the ‘Day of the Lord’ being ‘near’ (ex. Isa. 13) may be referring to a truly imminent coming of the Lord in the lifetime and generation of those to whom the prophecy was given. Secondly, it may be referring to a coming of the Lord being ‘near’ to the immediate audience while at the same time being typological of the Second Coming to be fulfilled at the end of the age or to end world history. And, lastly, it may be referring to projected imminence, that is, when the prophecy would be fulfilled, or begin to unfold, it would be ‘soon’ at that point. I could provide you with a list if you’d like. NT imminence follows this OT pattern, and I could believe that the coming of the Lord in Matthew 24:27, for example, was imminently fulfilled in AD 70, and this wouldn’t affect my position at all. And yet when I read that the coming of the Lord is ‘near’ in the NT, I believe God is using a different calendar (2 Pet. 3:8) or standard (than that of OT imminence?) and this is simply God wanting every generation to think that His coming is ‘near’ for them.”
The Q&A session was very short, so we could not get into all of these OT prophecies and examine them. I did ask for a “list” of OT time texts that were not fulfilled within the lifetime of the prophet or his contemporaries so we could examine them, but he did not provide his proof texts. So, let’s go to a Zionist book that Dr. Brown has endorsed hoping to refute Full Preterism, Debunking Preterism, for that list and see if it supports the Full Preterist exegesis or the Premillennial Zionist position. Brock Hollett writes:
· “…the historical manner of interpreting the time statements finds its origins in the Old Testament Prophets. The prophets warned of an impending judgment upon the wicked at the day of the Lord:
· “Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come!” (Isaiah 13:6)
· “…its time is close at hand and its days will not be prolonged” (Isaiah 13:22)
· “For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near” (Ezekiel 30:3)
· “Alas for the day! For the day of the LORD is near” (Joel 1:15)
· “the day of the LORD is coming; it is near” (Joel 2:1; cf. Isaiah 9:9; Malachi 4:1)
· “For the day of the LORD is near upon all nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you” (Obadiah 1:15)
· “For the day of the LORD is near (Zephaniah 1:7)
· “…in a little while” (Haggai 2:6)”[2]
My response - There are really three issues here which we must address and unpack: 1). The OT imminence of the day of the Lord being near is a pattern which corresponds to the NT imminence of the day of the Lord being near. 2). There are OT types and NT anti-types, or double fulfillments of the day of the Lord. 3). Did or does Psalm 90:4 or 2 Peter 3:8 change the meaning of any OT or NT imminent prophetic material to mean thousands of years? We have already dealt with double fulfillments, so let’s address 1 and 3.
1). OT Imminence – the day of the LORD is near
In our debate I appealed to such passages as Ezekiel 7 and 12 along with Isaiah 13:6, and asked if the day of the Lord judgments in these texts were truly “near” and “without delay” and thus fulfilled within the time of the prophet’s audience. Dr. Brown affirmed that they were – kind of, sort of. I emphasized that in Ezekiel 7 and 12, where we learn that “the day of the Lord is NEAR” and would be “WITHOUT DELAY” (12:23-25; 7:7), it was the FALSE prophets who sought to change the meaning of God’s revelation from “near” and “without delay” to “The vision he [Ezekiel] sees is for MANY years from now, and he prophesies about the DISTANT future” (12:27).
This misapplication and twisting of God’s truly prophetic imminent coming in judgment caused God’s anger to burn against those false prophets and therefore He affirmed once again, “None of my words will be delayed any longer; whatever I say will be fulfilled, declares the Sovereign LORD” (12:28). What a stinging rebuke for the Futurist (Evangelical or Reformed) and Charismatic Zionist Futurists of our day, such as Dr. Brown, who seek to change the Second Coming and Day of the Lord from being “near” / “in a very little while / would NOT be DELAYED” (ex. Heb. 10:37) / in AD 70 to be, well, in reality fulfilled in the “distant future” from the first century Church. As you can clearly see, Mr. Brock Hollett did not include a discussion of Ezekiel 7 and 12 in addressing OT imminence. How revealing indeed.
Let’s go ahead and address the “list” Brown and Hollett have come up with:
A). “Wail, for the day of the LORD is near; as destruction from the Almighty it will come!” (Isaiah 13:6) and “…its time is close at hand and its days will not be prolonged” (Isaiah 13:22).
Response: Unfortunately, many think this prediction is referring to the fall of Babylon at the hands of the Medes years beyond Isaiah’s contemporaries. But the truth is that this is referring to the judgment upon Babylon at the hands of Assyria some 15 years from Isaiah’s prophetic word. Thus, the prophecy was literally “near” as even a Dispensationalist Zionist commentary points out:
“After Sargon II died in 705 there was much rebellion in the Assyrian Empire. The Elamites put Mushezib-Marduk over Babylon (692–689); he made an alliance with several nations including the Medes. To subdue the rebellion in Babylon, Sennacherib marched there in 689 and destroyed it.”[3]
“Isaiah 13:14–18 (BKC): The statement I will stir up against them the Medes (v. 17) has caused much discussion among Bible students. Many interpreters, because of the mention of the fall of Babylon (v. 19), assume that Isaiah was (in vv. 17–18) prophesying Babylon’s fall in 539 (cf. Dan. 5:30–31) to the Medes and Persians. However, that view has some difficulties. In the Medo-Persian takeover in 539 there was very little change in the city; it was not destroyed so it continued on much as it had been. But Isaiah 13:19–22 speaks of the destruction of Babylon. Also the word “them,” against whom the Medes were stirred up (v. 17), were the Assyrians (referred to in vv. 14–16), not the Babylonians. It seems better, then, to understand this section as dealing with events pertaining to the Assyrians’ sack of Babylon in December 689 b.c. As Seth Erlandsson has noted, “The histories of the Medes, Elamites, and Babylonians converge around the year 700 in the struggle against the Assyrian world power and … Babylon assumes a particularly central position in that great historical drama from the latter years of the 8th century down to the fall of Babylon in 689.”[4]
“Babylon was besieged no fewer than three times – in the lifetime of Isaiah, viz., in 710 by Sargon, and in 703 and 691 by Sennacherib.” Babylon’s fall in 689 is, however, “die einzige wirkliche Zerstorung von Babylon, die uberhaupt stattgefunden hat.”
“With regard to Babylon’s role in the history, her position mainly in the 6thcentury has been delineated when dealing with Old Testament texts. The main reason for this was that Babylon’s history during the Assyrian period was less familiar, while, on the other hand, the historical events involving Babylon in the 6thcentury were well known. It is therefore significant that when the new Akkadian text-finds from Mesopotamia began to be published towards the end of the 19thcentury, they gave rise to a reconsideration of the current interpretations of various passages…”.
“…we have arrived at the culmination of the many bloody struggles, namely the fall of Babylon. When the king of Elam was smitten by a stroke of apoplexy in April 689, Sennacherib took advantage of the occasion and marched against Babylon to take there his revenge against Elam and put an end to Babylon’s power once and for all. In December 689 the city was captured and Mushezib-Mushezib-Arduk taken prisoner. That which no one previously had dared and which was considered to be out of the question, Sennacherib now accomplished. Marduk’s famed and holy city had laid in ruins. “like the on-coming of a storm I broke loose, and overwhelmed it like a hurricane” (cf. Isa. 21:1). “I completely invested that city…whether small or great, I left none. With their corpses I filled the city squares (wide places)…The gods dwelling therein, –the hands of my people took them, and they smashed (usabbiru) them” (cf. Isa. 21:9). “The city and (its) house, from its foundation to its top, I destroyed, I devastated, I burned with fire. The wall and outer wall, temples and gods, temple towers of brick and earth, as many as there were, I razed and dumped them into the Arahtu Canal.” His final gesture was to have huge volumes of water released over the ruins in order to obliterate every trace of that city which had constantly been in revolt. “I made its destruction more complete than that by a flood. That in days to come the site of that city, and (its) temples and gods, might not be remembered, I completely blotted it out with (floods of) water and made it like a meadow.” That event must have had to the effect of a bomb on the contemporary world and it is significant that Sennacherib’s successor, as his first measure, sets himself to the reconstruction of the “holy” city. He laid stress on Babylon’s cosmopolitan character and its destiny as an open city and gathering place of the peoples. What had befallen Babylon as a result of Sennacherib’s fury should never happen again. When the Neo-Babylonian kingdom had come to an end 539 and was succeeded by the Persian, no one did violence to Babylon.
This historical excursus has thus shown that the histories of the Medes, Elamites and Babylonians converge around the year 700 in the struggle against the Assyrian world-power and that Babylon assumes a particularly central position in that great historical drama from the latter years of the 8thcentury down to the fall of Babylon in 689.[5]
Dr. Brown, while agreeing that imminence was literal in Isaiah 13:6, 22, mentioned that Isaiah 13 was going on to deal with the destruction of the planet. Yet again the hyper-literal Zionist Bible Knowledge Commentary admits:
“The statements in 13:10 about the heavenly bodies (stars.… sun … moon) no longer functioning may figuratively describe the total turnaround of the political structure of the Near East. The same would be true of the heavens trembling and the earth shaking (v. 13), figures of speech suggesting all-encompassing destruction” (ibid., p. 1059).
There is nothing in the passage which tells us that this is a type of a literal “day of the LORD” resulting in the end of world history and the destruction of the planet that Jesus allegedly picks up on Matthew 24:3, 29, 35 and applies to our future. This is simply assumed here in Isaiah and in Matthew 24. The truth is that both Isaiah 13 and Matthew 24 are referring to two contemporary and imminent judgments using common, non-literal apocalyptic language.
B). “For the day is near, the day of the LORD is near” (Ezekiel 30:3). “When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over you, and put darkness on your land, declares the Lord God” (Ezek. 32:7-8).
Response - This is addressing a historical judgment upon Egypt around 587 BC by the Assyrians and was literally fulfilled in a “near” time frame using symbolic, apocalyptic language. Again, there’s nothing in this passage telling us this is a type of a physical cloud coming of God in the future to destroy the planet.
C). Obadiah 1:15 – The “day of the LORD is NEAR.”
Response - The quote below is part of what John Gill had to say of this passage, which was true, but later he begins dropping the ball and compromising with an end-of-time judgment for Edom and Rome connected to “antichrists.” However, this is the accurate statement:
“Edom and the other surrounding nations/heathen to Jerusalem rejoiced to see God’s people punished by Him through the Babylonians (somewhere between 605 – 586 BC or in the Jewish calendar 439 – 420 BC), and so God would come in a ‘near’ time frame upon them (within five years) after His judgment of Jerusalem. The ‘nations’ here are local nations: the Edomites, Egyptians, Philistines, Tyrians, Ammonites, Moabites and others…”[6]
God was able to deceive Edom and other nations – giving them over to their pride. He allowed even their “friends” to deceive them (v. 7). God likewise laid a trap for old covenant Jerusalem in AD 70, giving them over to their pride and false prophets – in thinking and calculating Daniel’s seventy weeks so as to think it was the time in which God was going to deliver them from the Romans, when in fact the opposite was the case. They would be food for the vultures of Rome for rejecting their Messiah/Jesus.
We have learned from the Dead Sea Scrolls that even the Essenes were caught up in their self-righteousness, thinking God was going to deliver them (the true children of light) from the Romans and Apostate Jerusalem.
However, as the Apostate religious rulers of Jerusalem learned along with those Monkish Essenes who isolated themselves, all who rejected Jesus would perish at the hands of their own brethren, friends and Rome in the events of AD 67 - 70.
D). “Alas for the day! For the day of the LORD is near” (Joel 1:15); “the day of the LORD is coming; it is near” (Joel 2:1; cf. Isaiah 9:9; Malachi 4:1).
Response - Joel 1-3 is addressing two Days of the Lord – one that was literally “near” for Joel’s immediate audience and one that would be near in the last days. The second is consistent with, say, Deuteronomy 31-32, which taught that Israel’s “end” would be “near” in her “latter days” when a specific “perverse and crooked generation” arrived, which Peter tells us predicted his contemporary generation and therefore the time when the “end of all things is NEAR” (Acts 2:40/1 Pet. 1:10-12, 4:5-7).
Don Preston points out the following:
“So, the language of the Day of the Lord is used in the Old Testament. When the Old Testament prophets said the Day was near, they were not referring to the end of the age, consummative Day of the Lord. When they referred to a Day of the Lord that was near, it was an event that was to occur in their lifetime (See Ezekiel 12.21f again). However, when they were speaking of the last days, when the kingdom would be established, the resurrection, etc., they were told that it was not near (cf. Isaiah 2.2-21f).
This is clearly illustrated in Joel. In the first two chapters, the prophet declared “the Day of the Lord is near” (Joel 1.15; 2.1, 10). He repeatedly describes events that took place historically, in an in-time Day of the Lord, as we have documented above.
However, in verse 28 the prophet said: “It shall come to pass afterward.” What does “afterward” mean? It means after the events he had been describing, at another time known as the last days, the events that he then describes would be near. Notice that in 3:1, he then says “In those days (the last days, DKP) and at that time…”
Joel is a case of projected imminence. That is my term to describe what happens in the O.T. when a prophet speaks of events that were not for his day, but he describes events in the distant future. As he describes those events, he says that in the days under consideration, other events would be near. Moses did this in Deuteronomy 4.25f, when he spoke of Israel’s coming future. He said that after they had dwelt long in the land, and then became corrupt, that then, a long time off from his perspective, when they became corrupt, “you will soon utterly perish from the land.” Moses was not saying that they were, when he wrote, about to utterly perish. He was projecting himself and his audience to a distant time, and saying that when certain things happened, their apostasy, that then their destruction would be near.
This is what happens in Joel. The writer speaks of events that were for his day. They were truly near. Then, however, he turns to the distant future, and says that when those distant days came, then, and not until then, another Day of the Lord would be near (Joel 3.14). Joel was not affirming that the last days Day of the Lord was near, or else Peter was wrong in 1 Peter 1.10!”[7]
Malachi 4:1: Dr. Brown, writing of Malachi 3:1-5, says:
“…God would visit the Second Temple, purifying some of his people [bringing salvation] and bringing judgment on others. There would be a divine visitation of great import that would occur in the days of the Second Temple… I ask you, did this happen? If it did, then the Messiah must have come before the Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E.; if not, God’s Word has failed.”[8]
The context of Malachi 3:1-5 / 4:1-6 and how it is applied to John the Baptist (as Elijah) is very clearly referring to the Second Coming of Jesus in AD 70.
Brown arbitrarily divides the “divine visitation of God” in a judgment of fire, whereby He saves and purifies some and brings wrath on others, here in Mal. 3:1-5 as AD 70, from the SAME coming day of the Lord and judgment of fire in Mal. 4:1-6. Let’s once again take a look at the context and description of this ONE coming of the Lord in AD 70 and John the Baptist’s imminent “already” and imminent “not yet” eschatology in developing these OT passages.
1). Luke 1:77-79; 7:27: “…for you [John] will go before the LORD to prepare his ways… whereby the sunrise [inclusive of the imminent, ‘not yet’ Second Coming - Mal. 4:2] shall visit us from on high… This is the one about whom it is written: ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’”
2). Malachi 3:1-5/4:1-6: “Behold, I send my messenger [John as Elijah], and he will prepare the way before me [Jesus]. And the Lord [Jesus] whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple [Second Coming]; and the messenger of the [new] covenant [Jesus] in whom you delight, behold, he is coming [Second Coming], says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming [Second Coming], and who can stand when he appears [Second Coming]? For he is like a refiner’s fire… For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble. The day that is coming shall set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. But for you who fear my name, the SUN of Righteousness [Second Coming] shall rise with healing in its rays/wings. You shall go out … leaping like calves from the stall… Behold, I will send you Elijah [John] the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes [Second Coming]. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”
3). Matthew 3:2: “In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, and saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!’”
The context will develop that the Kingdom being “at hand” is not just the arrival of the imminent eschatological “already” of the kingdom, but the imminent judgment or “not yet” of the kingdom as well.
4). Matthew 3:3: “For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah, saying: ‘The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the Lord; Make His paths straight.”’”
And yet the context of what John is “crying” and the way he is preparing is one of not just salvation, but also judgment:
5). Isaiah 40:5-10: “A voice cries… the glory of the LORD shall be revealed [seen], and all flesh shall see it together… All flesh is grass, And all its loveliness is like the flower of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, Because the breath of the Lord blows upon it; Surely the people are grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever… Say to the cities of Judah, ‘Behold your God!’ Behold, the Lord God shall come with a strong hand, And His arm shall rule for Him; Behold, His reward is with Him [cf. Mt. 16:27-28], And His work before Him.”
6). Matthew 3:7: “Many Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by John. He said to them, ‘You children of snakes! Who warned you to escape from the angry judgment that is [Greek mello] coming soon?’ (Mt. 3:7 CEB). …the punishment [or wrath] God is about to send (WUESTNT; GNT)?”
7). Matthew 3:10-12: “And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire” (Matt. 3:10-12).
We prefer the Reformed Historic Premillennialist view of this passage over Dr. Brown’s Dispensational or Zionist friendly one:
“…the awful judgment of God, which Christ was ready to execute, and in a short time would execute on the unbelieving and impenitent Jews: hence it is said to be ‘in his hand.’ …By ‘his floor is meant the land of Israel, where he was born, brought up, and lived; of which the Lord says, ‘O my threshing, and the corn of my floor!’ #Isa 21:10.”[9]
Concluding Malachi 3-4 and John the Baptist’s imminent “not yet” eschatology, the truth is that the Church has identified the coming of the Lord here as both His imminent coming in judgment in AD 70 and as the Second Coming event. As Full Preterists, we acknowledge both positions are true.
E). “For the day of the LORD is near upon all nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you” (Obadiah 1:15).
My Response - Matthew Poole points out there was truly an imminent judgment of Edom and the surrounding nations here:
“For the day of the Lord, of just revenge from the Lord upon this cruelty of Edom, the time which the Lord hath appointed for the punishing of this and other nations, is near upon all the heathen; which God had given to Nebuchadnezzar, and which by this man’s arms God would punish, as Jeremiah 27:2-7; and that day may justly be accounted near, which shall come within the compass of one man’s life, and that well advanced in years, as Nebuchadnezzar now was.
As thou hast done, perfidiously, cruelly, and ravenously against Jacob, with a hostile, revengeful mind, it shall be done by thine enemies to thee, as Obadiah 1:7; and this came to pass on Edom within five years after Jerusalem was sacked and ruined; within which space of time Obadiah prophesied, reproving Edom, and threatening him for what he had done against Jerusalem and its inhabitants.”[10]
Again, there is no exegetical evidence within Obadiah that this is a truly imminent judgment upon Edom and the surrounding nations that is typological of another NT “day of the Lord,” of which “near” then means 2,000 plus years and counting. Brown’s “argument” is “bizarre” and “fascinating,” to use Dr. Brown’s phrases in our debate.
F). “For the day of the LORD is near (Zephaniah 1:7).
Response - This is descriptive of an imminent judgment upon the Jews at the hands of the Babylonians. John Gill writes of this passage and the genuine nearness of the event:
“For the day of the Lord is at hand; the time of his vengeance on the Jewish nation for their sins, which he had fixed in his mind, and had given notice of by his prophets: this began to take place at Josiah’s death, after which the Jews enjoyed little peace and prosperity; and his successor reigned but three months, was deposed by the king of Egypt, and carried thither captive, and there died; and Jehoiakim, that succeeded him, in the fourth year of his reign was carried captive into Babylon, or died by the way thither; so that this day might well be said to be at hand:”[11]
Again, there is no exegetical evidence here of a truly imminent day of the LORD that is typological of a NT day of the Lord that is said to be “near,” but really isn’t!
G). “…in a little while” (Haggai 2:6).
Response - Here is a section taken from our book on this passage concerning its truly imminent fulfillment in Haggai’s day and then the truly imminent anti-type in the fulfillment of the book of Hebrews, which was fulfilled in that first century generation in AD 70:
“The prophecy of Haggai 2:6–9, 21–23 was fulfilled, in a “typical” sense, in the lifetime of Zerubbabel. In about four years (“in a little while”) after the prophecy was given, God overthrew all the nations, (He “shook the heavens, the earth, the sea and the dry land”) and the desire or wealth of all nations came, and the temple was filled with glory (with gold and silver). (Compare Haggai 1:15; 2:10 and Ezra 6:15.)
This all took place when Darius King of Persia overturned Israel’s enemies, who for years had been preventing the rebuilding of God’s house. Darius decreed, “May God . . . overthrow any king or people who lifts a hand to change this decree or to destroy this temple in Jerusalem” (Ezra 6:11–12). Darius forced Israel’s enemies themselves to pay the full cost of the rebuilding, as well as the full cost of all the daily, priestly services (Ezra 6:8–10).
The military and political power of Israel’s enemies was overthrown. They had tried to turn the king against Israel (Ezra 5), but God turned their own stratagems against them. He made them subservient to His people, taking their own wealth for the building of His glorious, earthly house. God had thus “moved heaven and earth” to keep the covenant that He had made with His people through Moses (Ezra 6:18; Hag. 2:5).
The prophecy of Haggai 2:6–9; 21–23 also foreshadowed the fulfillment of the better promise (Heb. 8:6) that was fulfilled in Christ’s generation. Israel’s building of the greater, earthly house in Zerubbabel’s generation was an example of the building of the true, heavenly “House” in Christ.
Within perhaps only four years (“in a little while”) after Hebrews 12:26 was written, God overthrew all the nations. He “shook the heavens, the earth, the sea and the dry land.” The desire of all nations came, and God’s Temple was filled with Glory.
This happened when God overturned His kingdom-enemies who, in their persecution of the church, had furiously resisted the construction of His new covenant temple (Eph. 2:21–22; I Peter 2:5). Despite the rage of the enemies, God enlisted countless multitudes of them to build His new House (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21; Rev. 5:9); and the enemies who resisted to the end were crushed, and were cast out of the kingdom in AD 70 (Matt. 8:12; 21:43; Lk. 13:28; Acts 4:25–28; Gal. 4:30; Rev. 3:9).
God “moved heaven and earth” to keep the covenant that He made with His elect through the blood of Christ. Now the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit dwell eternally in the universal church, which is the new covenant House of promise (Jn. 14:23; Gal. 4:19; Eph. 2:21–22; 3:17; Col. 1:27; II Peter 1:19; Rev. 3:20; 21:2–3). Through the power of the eternal gospel, the desire of the nations flows into “the more perfect tabernacle” today and forever (Heb. 9:11; Rev. 21:26–27), and God Himself is its unfading Glory (Rev. 21:23). Amen.”[12]
2). Does 2 Peter 3:8 change the meaning of NT imminence?
“But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Pet. 3:8-9).
Response - Peter is quoting from Psalm 90:4, which in context reads,
“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. You return man to dust and say, “Return, O children of man!” For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night. You sweep them away as with a flood; they are like a dream, like grass that is renewed in the morning: in the morning it flourishes and is renewed; in the evening it fades and withers. For we are brought to an end by your anger; by your wrath we are dismayed. You have set our iniquities before you, our secret sins in the light of your presence. For all our days pass away under your wrath; we bring our years to an end like a sigh. The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. Who considers the power of your anger, and your wrath according to the fear of you? So, teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom” (Ps. 90:2-12).
In our debate, Dr. Brown appealed to 2 Peter 3:8 and claimed Peter was using it to communicate that “God has a different calendar than we do” and therefore NT imminence of “near”, “soon”, “about to”, “quickly”, “in a very little while and will not delay” can really mean 2,000 plus years and counting.
There are several points I would like to make on these passages.
Point #1 – Since Dr. Brown admitted that at least some of the OT days of the Lord that were “near” were genuinely near and fulfilled within the lifetimes of their audiences, and Psalm 90:4 is an OT passage, then how is it that “God’s calendar of time that isn’t ours” didn’t change the meaning of “near” in the OT?!? As seen in Ezekiel 7 and 12, God was upset when the false prophets changed the meaning of “near” and “would not delay” to “far off” or to a fulfillment for “many days” beyond their lifetimes. If Dr. Brown’s interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8 is correct, then God had no right to be angry and the false prophets could have appealed to Psalm 90:4 and reasoned, “we know Ezekiel is saying the day of the Lord’s judgment is ‘near’ and will ‘not be delayed,’ BUT, remember, ‘with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.’ Therefore, really the prophecy could be ‘far off,’ right?”
If Psalm 90:4 wasn’t used in the OT to change the meaning of the day of the Lord being “near,” it most assuredly wasn’t being used by Peter or any NT author that way.
Point #2 – The context of Psalm 90 is that the generation of unbelievers perished in the desert just as God had determined and promised. They did not outlast God’s judgment, for God’s word was sure and accurate. The Psalm begins with a reminder going as far back to Adam, who returned to the dust after 930 years. Psalm 90:4 is a contrast of Adam returning to dust, not achieving a thousand years, and God considering man’s longest days as nothing or but a “day” in His sight. Even when man may come close to a thousand years—Methuselah lived 969 years (Gen 5:27)—in God’s reckoning it is but “a day.” As mentioned in Ezekiel 7 and 12, the POINT was not only they were twisting the meaning of “near,” but were boasting that they could OUTLAST God’s predicted judgment.
The context of the mockers in 2 Peter is similar. In the case of the “mockers,” they were mocking Jesus’ prediction to come in their generation as if it would not come and they would outlast it. “All things continue” (2 Pet. 3:4) was their response to a definite, imminent prophecy of their demise. But Peter had to point out that they were deliberately forgetting certain aspects of their history, which Psalm 90 covers. When God determines a judgment upon man (Adam returning to dust, the flood, perishing in the wilderness, etc.), it is certain to take place when God says it will, and most assuredly they too would not outlast or dismiss it away. Peter’s point is that others, like the mockers within our history, have thought they could outlast or deny God’s certain and imminent judgments, but they couldn’t. While they appealed to a history lesson of their fathers since the creation of the old covenant age, at the same time they were deliberately leaving out very important things concerning the judgments of their people. So, YES, Jesus is KEEPING His promise and, despite their mocking, they would not outlast His “NEAR” (1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17) judgment coming upon them anymore than others thought they could.
Not only that, but the Rabbis used Ps. 90:15-17 to teach a 40 year, second exodus generation in which Messiah would have a transitionary reign between their old covenant, “this age” and the Messianic “about to come,” new covenant age. So, YES, Jesus is KEEPING His promise just as Psalm 90 lays out.
Psalm 90:4 is also brought up in Revelation 20 as well with the Church currently being within the 1,000 year millennial reign. Here were some of my thoughts on this text taken from our book HD:
“Adam falling short of the 1,000-year lifespan by 70 years (Gen. 5:5) may represent his being created a mortal being and perishing in sin outside of God’s presence. If this is the case, then it is more than reasonable that the number 1,000 took on the symbolism and representation of Christ’s and the church’s victory over Death in contrast to Adamic man’s vain existence apart from God’s salvation (Eccl. 6:6).
Some Evangelicals and Reformed theologians along with some preterists such as Milton Terry do not understand the long lifespans in the early chapters of Genesis to be literal.[3] They believe that the lifespans were symbolic and contained numerological elements. But even if Adam’s lifespan was a literal 930 years, this does not exclude an anti-typical, symbolic 1,000 years in Revelation 20.
When Messiah came as “the last Adam,” His reign in and through the church for a symbolic thousand years brought the church not to the dust of the earth separated from God’s presence, but to the Tree of Life and into the very presence of God (Rev. 20–22:12). Through faith in and union with Christ as the Last Adam (the Tree of Life and New Creation), Christians have achieved what Adam could not. The church was clothed with “immortality”; it attained unto the “fullness” of life in AD 70; and it will never die for the aeons of the aeons (2 Cor. 1:20; 1 Cor. 15:45–53; Rev. 21–22; Jn. 11:26–27).”[13]
Christ and the Church were reigning for a symbolic 1,000 year period (Rev. 20). Old covenant Israel and its “mockers” would not outlast this transitionary or probationary period. They would become a “corpse” picked apart by the Roman vultures/eagles by AD 70, while the Church would continue with Him in the Spirit having eternal life and having dominion over the nations through the everlasting gospel. Selah.
While I would not agree with this commentator on all that he has to say of our text, I would agree that Peter’s emphasis is that God was not slow or producing a delay to His coming.
The idea that the Lord is not slow is probably an allusion to Hab 2:3: “For the revelation awaits an appointed time; it speaks of the end and will not prove false. Though it linger, wait for it; it will certainly come and will not delay.” In some Greek translations of the OT, exactly the same word is used for “delay” that 2 Peter uses. Furthermore, one could understand the Greek as saying, “He will not be slow” or “He will not delay.” While a similar thought is expressed in Isa 13:22, Sir 35:19 (LXX; 35:22 in the NRSV) is closer to our thought here: “Indeed, the Lord will not delay, and like a warrior [or “upon them”] will not be patient until he crushes the loins of the unmerciful.…”[14]
Unfortunately, this commentator does not see the significance of my next point (#3) below in connection with these OT references, which he cites in relation to Jesus’ and Peter’s prediction of a genuine nearness that “will not delay.”
Point #3 – The very fact that the mockers (Judaizers – false prophets and teachers) were mocking the reality of Jesus’ coming, in light of some of the early church fathers having already died, demonstrates that the coming of the Lord was not a limitless coming but one which was well known to be prophesied to take place within some of their lifetimes, in their generation and thus “near” to them (Mt. 16:27-28; Mt. 24:27-34; 1 Pet. 4:5-7, 17). The fact that the text implies the false prophets understood NT imminence better than Dr. Brown and other Futurists is a sad commentary indeed.
Point #4 – What would happen if a Bible College or Seminary student asked the instructor in a hermeneutics class, “If I have over 200 clear texts on a given subject and I only have one passage that seems to give a contradictory interpretation of the clear 200, which passage or passages should I go with?”
Everyone knows what the hermeneutics instructor would say (no matter what the denomination). “You go with the 200 clear passages and interpret the one passage in light of the others or in such a way that does not contradict them.”
And yet when the Full Preterist has over 200 OT and NT clear texts, which demonstrate the “Day of the LORD” was “near” or “without delay,” so many of these same instructors are willing to throw ALL NT imminence concerning the coming of the Lord, judgment and resurrection completely under the bus in their misguided understanding of just one passage (2 Pet. 3:8).
There have been other attempts to get rid of the obvious meaning of NT imminence. Let’s briefly address some of them.
The “symbolic”, “principle”, “ideal” and “eschatological time” view
Simon Kistemaker, in order to walk the creedal party line, decides that the time texts in Revelation should be understood in an “ideal” way or should be somehow “symbolically” interpreted as “…the meaning of eschatological time, expressed not in chronological periods, but in terms of principle.”[15]
Response: I hate to sound disrespectful here, but it sounds like someone is smoking weed or crack when I hear bizarre comments like these. Or maybe this is coming from some secular philosophical department somewhere? Or perhaps some liberal neo-orthodox seminary? Unfortunately, none of these are the case. Kistemaker is clearly trying his best to hide behind very vague and so-called “scholarly” or philosophical language. Why? It’s because he knows he has no lexical support for making these kinds of comments! I’m sorry, but the truth is that the Futurist and creedal emperor really doesn’t have any clothes on here, folks.
This sounds like other kinds of gibberish I hear such as Jesus’ Second Coming is “always near” (ex. Anthony A. Hoekema),[16] or “For the NT writers, the nearness of the Parousia is not so much chronological nearness as a “salvation-history nearness.”[17]
John MacArthur claims the NT authors truly expected Christ’s “soon”, “will not delay” coming to occur in their lifetimes, but then says that’s just what Christ wants all of us to think and expect. Yet MacArthur also affirms that Christ may continue to “delay” His coming another 2,000 years and counting. If language means anything, how on God’s green earth can Christ’s Second Coming be genuinely “near” and “will not delay” for the inspired writers of the NT, genuinely “near” and “will not delay” for us, and yet at the same time Christ could delay His coming for another 2,000 years?!? MacArthur’s friend. R.C. Sproul. correctly called this kind of philosophical mumbo jumbo and exegetical gymnastics as on par with liberal “neo-orthodoxy,” and he corrected men like F.F. Bruce for trying to defend similar dribble:
“When F. F. Bruce speaks of faith making the time be ‘at hand,’ this sounds all too much like Rudolf Bultmann’s famous theology of timelessness, which removes the object of faith from the realm of real history and consigns it to a super temporal realm of the always present hic et nunc [here and now].”[18]
There is also some irony here for those Futurist, Reformed commentators like Kistemaker, Hoekema, etc. who claim to want to honor God’s sovereignty in the redemptive history of men. We hear from them that “God will accomplish what He sets out to do when He says and decrees it to take place” kind of rhetoric. John uses a very strong word in Revelation 1:1 to indicate that the prophecy most assuredly will be fulfilled “shortly” when he says it “must (Greek dei) shortly take place.” This word means, “necessity established by the counsel and decree of God, especially by that purpose of his which relates to the salvation of men by the intervention of Christ and which is disclosed in the Old Testament prophecies.” The Second Coming or appearing of Christ as our Great High Priest “in a very little while and will not delay” (Heb. 9:26-28—10:37) “relates to the salvation of men,” and to teach otherwise is to go against the sovereign decrees and purposes of God! To claim Christ didn’t come when He decreed and purposed to is not something any real Calvinist should attempt to teach. Selah.
Not only is a denial of God’s sovereignty inseparably connected to a denial of NT imminence, but an indirect attack on the inspiration of Scripture is in view as well. As Gary DeMar writes,
“Any student of the Bible who does not interpret these time texts to mean anything other than close at hand is in jeopardy of denying the integrity of the Bible.”[19]
The inspired writers were “led into all truth…concerning things to come” (the timing and nature of the Second Coming). They were not giving us what they “felt” might happen when they taught Christ was going to come in their lifetimes, generation, soon, etc.
The “when Jesus decides to come He will come really fast then” view
“Must shortly or quickly (Greek en taxei in the taxos word group) take place” (Rev. 1:1; see also: 2:16; 3:11; 22:6-7, 12, 20) is a key phrase.
Premillennial Zionist John Walvoord writes of en tachei,
“…indicating a rapidity of execution after the beginning takes place. The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden (Lk. 18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rms. 16:20).”[20]
Let me summarize this view as teaching “whenever Jesus decides to come, then He will come really quickly.” This is like me calling the fire department in an emergency and they tell me, “Don’t worry, we will be there “shortly”, “quickly” and our arrival will be “near.” And yet when they pull up a week later after my house has burnt down I say, “I thought you were coming ‘quickly.’ What happened?!?” And they reply, “Well, what we meant was when we decide to come, then we would drive very quickly at that point.” This is how Dispensationalist Thomas Ice has also sought to interpret the tachosword family with no success.[21]
Response: None of the translations I have consulted give this imaginative meaning to en tachei. Not only this, but Arndt & Gingrich translate en tachei (in Lk. 18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20; Walvoord’s “proof texts”) as “soon, in a short time.” And even outside of the Bible (e.g. LXX or Josephus) taxos means - yes, you guessed it - “quickly” or “without delay.” And even if one were to grant this unsubstantiated meaning to en tachei, what of the other Greek words John used to communicate imminence in Revelation such as “near” / “at hand” (Greek engus) (Rev. 1:3; 22:10) or “about to be” (Greek mello) (Rev. 1:19; 3:10)? Clearly, John is using a wide range of imminent words such as en tachei, taxos, and mello harmoniously to prophesy that Christ’s Second Coming would be fulfilled imminently and not thousands of years later.
The Book of Revelation is filled with a contemporary first century group of Christians experiencing persecution and martyrdom, in which Jesus comforts them by explaining that He will return “soon” and in a “little while” to vindicate them from their first century persecutors and give them “relief” at His appearing from these Jewish persecutors – their “countrymen” the Pharisees, or the “synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 6:10-11; Mt. 23:30-36, Mt. 24; 1Thess. 2:14-16/2Thess. 1:6-7). Jesus was either faithful to return and gave them relief from these first century persecutors or He didn’t. It’s really that simple.
“Jesus was just saying His coming was a certain event to occur” view
This is what the Greek words actually are in Revelation 22:20 to communicate both genuine imminence and the thought of certainty:
“Surely [Greek nai – means ‘certainly’] I am coming quickly” [Greek tachu – means an event will be ‘without delay’ or take place ‘soon’].
Notice the text does not say, “Surely I am coming surely/certainly” (that would be redundant).
If all Jesus was trying to communicate was that His coming was “certain” to happen someday, there were Greek words He could have used instead of the taxos, engus, and mello word groups!
“Revelation is teaching that the beginning or inauguration of fulfillment was near, not the consummation of fulfillment” view
Perhaps the latest trend, and innovative “scholarly” approach from some Futurists to avoid the obvious, is to claim that the “inauguration” of fulfilled prophecy was genuinely “at hand” when John wrote Revelation, but not the consummation of the prophecy. G.K. Beale writes:
“The focus of ‘quickness’ and ‘nearness’ in vv 1-3 is primarily on inauguration of prophetic fulfillment and its ongoing aspect, not on nearness of consummated fulfillment… Indeed, what follows shows that the beginning of fulfillment and not final fulfillment is the focus.”[22]
Response: This is so obviously wrong and it’s disturbing that a publisher even paid for these kinds of comments to go into print for the Christian public to read, let alone portray them as “scholarly”! The entire book of “Revelation” or “prophecy [singular] of this book” [singular] was to be fulfilled “shortly” or “soon” (Rev. 1:1; 22:18-20). And everyone knows that the Second Coming and judgment described as taking place “soon” is the “consummative” event, and Pentecost and the giving of the Holy Spirit was the “inauguration” event that took place some 30 years in the past when John wrote!
Summing up OT & NT imminence in light of Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8
In examining the “list” of OT Day of the Lord passages that were “near,” we found that God was capable of communicating with man in language which he understands “near” and “without delay” to be. There was no exegetical evidence that “near” or “without delay” meant thousands of years, and that this is somehow the way to interpret over 150 direct imminent statements in the NT.
In a couple passages in the OT there were some typological passages or projected imminence passages in which, when the prophecy would begin to be fulfilled in Israel’s last days, they would be near. Or when that last days “perverse generation” arrived, then Israel’s “end” would be “near.”
But once in the NT, since the OT prophesied “last days” and “crooked” or “perverse generation” had arrived, the “nearness” of that day of the Lord had literally come. The harmony between the OT and NT is not the kind of harmony Dr. Brown sees. Brown wants to say that since there are a couple of projected imminence passages in the OT, this must mean that every NT imminence passage must be projected out to thousands of years away. Or because the OT was typological of NT prophecy, the NT also much contain more types of another consummation. No, Jesus and the NT authors communicate that “all that is written” in the Law and Prophets would be fulfilled in their generation. There’s the harmony in understanding the couple of projected or typological OT passages. The other harmony comes in the fact that the overwhelming “near” Day of the Lord passages (with apocalyptic de-creation language) were fulfilled within the lifetime and generation of the prophet’s audience and this is how we are to understand NT imminence. Brown will not acknowledge even ONE NT imminent coming of the Lord passage in the NT as being fulfilled by AD 70. It’s because he sees the Full Preterist train coming, as even one of the authors he endorses sees, when he admits that Partial Preterism will lead to Full Preterism.
While no one disagrees that the OT predicted partial or typological fulfillments, what Brown and men like Hollett are unwilling to see is that the NT writers are developing the imminent eschatological “not yet” anti-types to be fulfilled at the end of the old covenant age in AD 70. This is one of the reasons why I asked Dr. Brown in the cross-examination period to demonstrate from the book of Hebrews or any NT book where Jesus or the author goes from the OT physical typological promises, gives them a spiritual and imminent anti-type fulfillment, and THEN goes back to develop a physical distant fulfillment. He simply claimed the author of Hebrews didn’t have to give one example to support his system of OT physical type to the “true” and “better” spiritual anti-type AND then BACK to physical fulfillments. Neither the book of Hebrews nor ANY NT passage supports Brown’s carnal Premillennial Kingdom-on-earth position.
God sovereignly decreed or “set a day” on His eschatological “calendar” that was “about to be” (Acts 17:31YLT) fulfilled concerning Jesus’ truly imminent Second Coming in judgment by AD 70. He communicated its nearness in language we understand. If we want to honor how this language is used in the OT, honor God’s sovereignty and honor the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures, we must interpret imminence with its usual literal meaning.
Psalm 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8 NEVER changed the meaning of what “far off”, “many days” or “near” means. Daniel and Revelation contain the same eschatological promises and God communicated consistently in language man can understand concerning the prophetic material of both inspired books. Daniel was told to “seal up” his vision because the time of fulfillment was “far off” or would be fulfilled in “many days” from Daniel. Daniel was told that he would die and not be able to witness the event. Yet John was told the exact opposite: “Do NOT seal up” the vision because the time of fulfillment was “near” and he could live to witness it (cf. Mt. 16:27-28Jn. 21:21-23).
Daniel
Revelation
· “The vision of the evenings and the mornings that has been told is true, but seal up the vision, for it refers to many days from now” (Dan. 8:26)
· “and came to make you understand what is to happen to your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come.” (Dan.10:14)
· “But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end.” “…go your way till the end. And you shall rest and shall stand in your allotted place at the end of the days.”(Dan. 12:4, 13)
· “And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” (Rev. 22:10)
To read the entire 7-part series follow the links below:
Revelation Fulfilled by AD 70 Part 1 – Pre-AD 70 Dating:
https://michaelsullivan.substack.com/p/revelation-fulfilled-by-ad-70-part/comments?r=17mhb1
Revelation Fulfilled by AD 70 Part 2 – How Futurists Twist the Meaning of “Soon,” “Shortly,” “About to be” and “no more delay” in the Book of Revelation and NT Imminence in General:
Revelation Fulfilled by AD 70 Part 3 – Revelation 1-4: Parallels with Matthew 24-25, Recapitulation, Symbolism, Theme & Rewards (Eternal Life) Given in New Creation at Christ’s “Soon” Coming:
Revelation Fulfilled by AD 70 Part 4 – Revelation 5-10:
Revelation Fulfilled by AD 70 Part 5 – Revelation 11-13:
Revelation Fulfilled by AD 70 Part 6 – Revelation 14-19:
Revelation Fulfilled by AD 70 Part 7 – Revelation 20-22:
[1] Review of My Debate with Dr. Brown Over 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, https://fullpreterism.com/reviewing-and-critiquing-my-debate-with-charismatic-dr-michael-brown-over-1-corinthians-138-12-and-introducing-a-full-preterist-chronomessianic-interpretation-argument-on-daniel-924-27-that-went-un/ The debate on my YouTube channel includes charts and a Power Point:
[2] Brock Hollett, DEBUNKING PRETERISM How Over-Realized Eschatology Misses the “Not Yet” of Bible Prophecy, (Kearney, NE: Morris Publishing, 2018), 21
[3] (Martin, J. A. (1985). Isaiah. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures(Vol. 1, p. 1061). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.)
[4] Ibid., 91–2
[5] Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon A Study of Isaiah 13:2—14:23, (Berlingska, Boktryckeriet Lund, 1970), 91-92
[6] John Gill, Ibid.,
[7] Don K. Preston, Can God Tell Time, (JaDon publishers), 29-30
[8] Brown, Ibid. AJOJ, Vol. 1, 77-78
[9] John Gill’s Commentary, Ibid. free online
[10] Matthew Poole’s Commentary, also free and available online, Biblehum.com
[11] John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible, Ibid.
[12] David Green, Ed Hassertt and Michael Sullivan, House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be? (Ramona, CA: Vision Publishing, Second Edition 2013), 63-65
[13] Sullivan, ed. David Green, Ibid., House Douse Divided, 130
[14] Davids, P. H. (2006). The letters of 2 Peter and Jude (p. 278). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.)
[15] Simon Kistemaker, ed. Keith A. Mathison, WHEN SHALL THESE THINGS BE? A REFORMED RESPONSE TO HYPER-PRETERISM, (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 2004), 238.
[16] Anthony A Hoekema, THE BIBLE AND THE FUTURE, (Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI: 1979), 126
[17] Ibid.
[18] R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According To Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998), 108-109
[19] DeMar, Last Days Madness, Ibid., (1999 edition), 393, emphasis MJS
[20] John Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, (Chicago, Moody, 1966), 35
[21] Thomas Ice, Tim LaHaye, Ibid., 103.
[22] G.K. Beale, THE NEW INTERNATIONAL GREEK TESTAMENT COMMENTARY NIGT, The Book of Revelation, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1999), 182