Part 5 of this series

Sorry for the long wait, but at least you got some extra time to work your way through my longest post yet! Plus, I got to fly out to meet my new nephew and play with his older brother last weekend! So now that I’ve recuperated from that trip and have started getting my internal clock back on track, I think it’s about time I gave you the next article in my series on Bob Pulliam’s book “In the Days of Those Kings”. Bear in mind that I’ll probably be jumping back and forth between topics in this series (e.g., I’ll jump in and out of discussions about eschatological prophecies and deal with other parts of Pulliam’s book in between them, rather than deal with all of them in a row), since I make progress on some discussions faster than others. So once this series is done, I reserve the right to change up the final order of the Parts in this series, so future readers can have a more coherent train of thought to follow.

Introduction

At this point in my series on Bob Pulliam’s book “In the Days of Those Kings”, I’d like to bring up his discussion in Lesson 21 regarding a couple of key phrases in the opening and closing chapters of Revelation. Just after quoting the first 3 verses of Revelation from the 1995 NASB while boldfacing the phrases “must shortly take place” and “the time is near”, he writes the following:

John said that these things “must shortly take place.” Donald Barnhouse tells us that John meant that the “events of this book are to take place within a brief space of time.” Mr. Barnhouse is telling us that John did not mean that they were about to take place in John’s day. He is convinced that the events recorded in Revelation are all about today. He wants us to understand them as taking place quickly when they do begin to take place.

If we had no way of knowing what “shortly” meant in verse one, surely we could understand John when he said “the time is near.” (Rev 1:3) The events revealed within the prophecy of this book were near.

John was also told that “the time is near” at the end of the book (Rev 22:10). The original readers obviously needed this vision to understand what was about to take place in their lives. Jesus said, “I come quickly.” (Rev 22:20) The word quickly is the same word used in the very first verse of chapter one. John begins by saying these things will shortly (quickly) take place, and Jesus finishes it off by saying that He is coming quickly.

{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 224. Italics, boldface, and content in parentheses in original. See also source cited therein.}

So, Pulliam concedes here that the interpretation of “suddenly” (i.e., “rapidly”, “over a short space of time”) in Revelation 1:1 is just as valid as “shortly”, if we ignore all other contextual considerations; hence, additional information is needed to decide which of the two is correct. On that much, I completely agree.

After all, the Greek phrase the 1995 NASB renders “shortly take place” is γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει. Here’s a word-by-word translation of this phrase: “come into being {aorist middle infinitive} / in / a brief space [of time] {dative singular neuter}”. Barnhouse was right: “a brief space [of time]” is indeed the literal meaning of τάχει; check Strong’s Definition for G5034 if you don’t believe me. Whether the “brief space [of time]” mentioned in Revelation 1:1 is the time before the events begin or the time over which the events occur can’t be determined from this phrase alone. This is why I offer the thought-for-thought rendering “swiftly” in this post’s title: “swiftly” is a single word that can carry either of these meanings, so rendering the word this way in English Bibles would leave the interpretation up to the reader, rather than imposing the translator’s bias(es) on the reader.

The same would go for Revelation 22:20, although there’s one correction I should make here: Pulliam’s claim that “quickly” in that verse is the same word in 1:1 isn’t quite correct. Rather, the two words are derived from the same adjective: ταχύς (G5036), meaning “prompt”, “ready”, or “swift”. While 1:1 uses the noun form, τάχος, 22:20 uses the adverb form, ταχύ (G5035). Strong’s Definition for the adverb is “shortly, i.e. without delay, soon, or (by surprise) suddenly, or (by implication, of ease) readily”. So once again, either sense is a valid meaning for the word, and additional information is needed to determine which sense John intended.

Now, Pulliam is quite correct that which sense is meant in Revelation 1:1 (and 22:20) can be conclusively determined from Revelation 1:3 (and/or 22:10, which does use the same adverb as 1:3). But ironically, the understanding he’s insisting upon for all four of these verses is ruled out after a more thorough study of the latter two!

Why Are Preterists So Obsessed With “Nearness” Statements?

But before we get to that, I’d like to highlight something I’ve noticed while reading materials from preterists (online or in books): they seem to be obsessed with driving home statements supposedly talking about the “nearness” of Christ’s coming and other events Jesus mentioned. For example, here are all the other examples I’ve found in Pulliam’s book, with my rebuttals included in the source citations (fair warning, there’s A LOT of them!):

{In Lesson 1:} Jesus, at the beginning of His ministry, was preaching, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (Mk 1:15) Jesus later said, “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.” (Mk 9:1) In essence, then, Jesus was saying, “It is within the grasp (at hand) of this generation.” So what may we say of that promise if the “kingdom of God” as promised did not come during that generation?
{“In the Days of Those Kings”. 10. Italics and boldface in original. I’ll address Mark 1:15 in a future post I’ve already written, and I’ve already addressed Mark 9:1 here.}
{In Lesson 3:} This disregard for past fulfillment can also be seen in their treatment of Matthew 24. Jesus said that the then-present generation would not pass before its fulfillment (Mt 24:34). The Dispensationalist, however, tells us that our generation was on Jesus’ mind, so these events are about to be fulfilled in our near future.
{Ibid. 31. In fact, both of those interpretations of the phrase “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 are wrong, as I’ve already shown here.}
{In Lesson 11:} The Messiah had come according to prophecy, and the plan was for Him to establish His kingdom. John, as the forerunner of Jesus, had come preaching in the spirit and power of Elijah, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Mt 3:2; Lk 1:17). Jesus also preached a “kingdom of heaven is at hand” message (Mt 4:17), and sent the twelve out to preach it (Mt 10:7). Without a doubt, Jesus had every intention of establishing His kingdom on His first visit. We all agree on this.
{Ibid. 112. I’ll explain in that future post where I address Mark 1:15 that these mentions of “the kingdom of heaven [being] at hand” early on in Jesus’ ministry referred to the fact that Jesus embodied the Kingdom of God during his earthly ministry. Also, Jesus never intended to fully establish his kingdom on his first visit, but merely let the Israelites — and more importantly, Satan — think he did so his atonement for all sins could happen (1 Corinthians 2:7-8).}
I cannot lay enough emphasis upon the fact that the nearness of the kingdom was a prophetic declaration of Jesus. [I suspect my readers will soon beg to differ!] It was not a declaration of wishful thinking. It was a statement of what was to be expected. That expectation did not change, as is evident from a look at Matthew 16:28. After the supposed change in plan earlier in Matthew 16 [referring to the dispensationalist claim that when Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18 to build his church, he was declaring a “Plan B”], Jesus was still promising the kingdom. In fact, He pinned the timing down to that generation.
{Ibid. 113. Italics and boldface in original. Content in brackets mine. Again, I’ve already addressed Matthew 16:28 here.}
To say that God had to postpone the kingdom to punish the Jews (Mt 23:34-36) is tantamount to calling Jesus a liar when He said the kingdom would arrive before they died (Mt 16:28)….
The Dispensationalist believes that rejection was known, but ignored by Jesus in promising a fulfillment in that generation, necessitating a future effort to get the entire job done.
{Ibid. 114. Italics and boldface in original. Again, I disagree that God “had to postpone the kingdom”, because He never intended to institute it fully with Jesus’ first coming, anyway (only to atone for all sins and open up the Heavenly Dominions to those who’d follow him, with the Heavenly Dominions expanding to include everything else — except the Father — when he returns). Again, see here regarding Matthew 16:28. Again, see here regarding the phrase “this generation” in Matthew 24:34.}
Since it is unthinkable to put Jesus in the position of promising something He did not deliver (the kingdom in that generation), we need to look for the means by which the Dispensationalist deals with this problem he has created with his doctrine.
Two problems arise when Dispensationalists delay God’s plan due to rejection. We will discuss these problems as we take a closer look at this proposed “rejection” of Jesus. The problems they must address are:

1) If Dispensationalism is correct, the promise/prophecy of John and Jesus at the beginning of their ministries failed. It was to be in the lifetime of the people who heard, and yet it did not come. Failed prophecy is not acceptable for anyone who is to be regarded as a true prophet (Dt 18:20-22).
2) The redemptive purpose of God gets left out of the “master plan” when we conclude that Jesus wasn’t supposed to be rejected by the Jews (the Mt 23:35 view). If they had accepted Jesus, there would have been no sacrifice for our sins.

The first problem created by the Dispensational view is a “failure” of the promise made by Jesus (Mt 4:17; 16:28; Mk 9:1). The Dispensationalist does not look at the promise/prophecy at the beginning of the gospels as failing. It is simply viewed as an unfortunate delay. They emphasize the fact that John and Jesus said the kingdom is coming, and they tell us that it will come in the future. That emphasis ignores the timing specifically declared by Jesus. There is more to this than a promise that it will come. Both John and Jesus said that this kingdom was at hand. Jesus said that it would come within their lifetimes (Mt 16:28). What may we say about a promise that is only half kept? What may we say about a prophet whose prophecies are not 100% accurate? This problem cannot be answered with a certainty of fulfillment 2,000+ years in the future. If the kingdom did not come in their generation, then the promise/prophecy failed.
{Ibid. 115. Italics and boldface in original. Underlining mine. Again, Matthew 4:17 was an accurate statement at the time because Jesus embodied the kingdom of God during his time on earth. Again, see here regarding “this generation” and here regarding Matthew 16:28. Dispensationalists will get no help from me regarding the second problem.}
That [a quotation from Clarence Larkin that makes substantially the same point I make here] sounds like a pretty good argument, doesn’t it? However, there is a pretty significant problem here. This problem is found in trying to determine what “common honesty demanded” of Jesus [a phrase Larkin used in the quote]. Earlier in His ministry, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” (Mt 16:28) Now I want you to ask yourself, “Did Jesus’ disciples understand Him to mean a ‘visible’ or ‘spiritual’ kingdom coming in their lifetimes?” The disciples obviously believed a visible, earthly kingdom was coming in their lifetimes. Wouldn’t “common honesty” demand that Jesus correct their understanding about the actual kingdom they would see in their lifetimes? The Dispensational appeal to “common honesty” on the part of Jesus is a foolish attempt to force the misguided hopes of first century Jews into God’s plans.
{Ibid. 116. Italics in original. Content in brackets mine. My response to Pulliam’s questions? Jesus’ disciples didn’t expect “a visible, earthly kingdom was coming in their lifetimes“; they only expected that some of them would see “a visible earthly kingdom… in their lifetimes“. Again, see here regarding Matthew 16:28.}
[Responding to another quotation of Larkin:] This illustration of a preacher, preaching to people who he knows will not believe, is extremely deceptive. That is not at all what this is like. Instead, it would be like a preacher prophesying that a person will believe within their lifetime, but then they die before they do so. Jesus telling that generation that the kingdom would come before they died is the real point of this discussion.
{Ibid. 118. Italics in original. Again, see here regarding the phrase “this generation”.}
Luke then said, “He therefore began saying…” (Lk 3:7). Why did John begin to warn the multitudes? Because the words of Isaiah were coming to pass! Which ones? Prophecies of the Messiah. Keep in mind that there were some present who would not taste death before He established His kingdom (Mk 9:1).
{Ibid. 119. For the sixth time, see here regarding the claim about some not tasting death before seeing the Kingdom.}
{From a chart in Lesson 13:} Jesus said the kingdom would come in that generation. [Written once on each half of the chart]… {In footnote 4 thereof:} The promise required that a fulfillment be before some who were present would taste death (Mt 16:18 & 28; Mk 9:1). This would necessitate a fulfillment before the end of that generation. {In footnote 6 of the Lesson:} The expected kingdom must be established within that initial generation for the prophecy to be fulfilled (Mt 16:28); however, this view violates that necessary requirement.
{Ibid. 137. Italics in original. No, the promise of these verses only required that the expected kingdom be seen by some of the Disciples within their lifetimes. For the seventh time, see here regarding the claim about some not tasting death before seeing the Kingdom.}
Jesus told the disciples that He would build His church in their lifetimes (Mt 16:18). In the same context, He told the disciples that the kingdom would come with power in their lifetimes (Mt 16:28; Mk 9:1). In some way, the kingdom promise was fulfilled in His establishment of the church in their lifetimes. That receiving of power is revealed in Acts 2 where we find the beginning of the church. The kingdom would come with power and the church came with power. The natural conclusion is that the kingdom was coming when the church was coming.
{Ibid. 138. Italics in original. Yes, the Heavenly Dominions were expanded on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 30–from just the 11 remaining Disciples, Matthias, and their 108 other disciples to all who would follow Christ going forward; but that doesn’t mean the kingdom had arrived in its fullness–in fact, Peter denied this in Acts 2, as I show here. For the eighth time, see here regarding the claim about some not tasting death before seeing the Kingdom, where I also explain that Peter said the “power” of the kingdom was actually seen on the Mount of Transfiguration.}
The kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has fully come. It is not a future expectation in the New Testament. It is a declaration of realization. Any attempt to make the kingdom a future event does two very significant (and undesirable) things:

1) It puts Jesus in the position of being a liar, or an ignorant prophet. He said the kingdom was coming in that generation. If He knew that it would not, then He lied. If He didn’t know, then He was ignorant.
2) It makes the prophecies vague beyond any possibility of understanding. Apostles and prophets who were inspired by the Holy Spirit declared Old Testament prophecy fulfilled. They claimed that Jesus had ascended David’s throne. If we must view their understanding as a shadowy figure of future events, then there is no hope of accurately predicting the truth about the “End-Times.” Dispensational authors describing how it will actually take place need to stop putting their speculative books on bookstore shelves as if they have better insights than men who actually wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

{Ibid. 141. Again, Peter placed Jesus ruling on David’s throne in the future from the events of Acts 2. For the fifth time, see here regarding the phrase “this generation”. Yes, many OT prophecies were fulfilled in the 1st century A.D., but the idea that all OT prophecies were fulfilled by then is simply false–Ezekiel 26:14, which wasn’t fulfilled until A.D. 1291, is a prime counterexample. I also find it hypocritical for Pulliam to decry dispensational authors who write as if they know better than the Apostles, when he said to my face that “We don’t follow Justin Martyr,” (his exact words) in an attempt to dismiss the Church Fathers’ insights on eschatology wholesale–as if he knows what the Apostles taught better than people writing within living memory of the Apostles, some of whom were directly taught by the Apostles! More on what these people taught later. Then again, Pulliam has plenty of company here: quite a few groups within Christendom have made Justin Martyr their whipping boy–precisely because he exposes so many of their cherished teachings as later innovations that were totally foreign to the earliest Christians!}
{In Lesson 17:} When we come to the New Testament, an inspired proclamation begins to go forth: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand” (Mk 1:15). What time was fulfilled? Jesus was saying that those days were the intended time for Old Testament prophecy to be fulfilled. It was the days of that final kingdom in Nebuchadnezzar’s image. The fourth kingdom (Rome) was in power (Lk 3:1), and the messenger to prepare the way had already come (Mk 1:1-5 cmp. Mal 3:1; Isa 40:3). Any effort to move the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy into the future makes Christ’s proclamation a mistake. He said the time was fulfilled. God’s timetable placed the kingdom in the days of the Roman kings. The stage was set, the curtain had risen, and the players were in place.
{Ibid. 179-180. Italics and boldface in original. Again, Ezekiel 26:14 shows that Pulliam has misunderstood Christ’s proclamation–not all Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled by Apostolic times. I’ll give a fuller response to this remark by Pulliam when I discuss Lessons 17 & 18 in more detail, but suffice it to say for now that Pulliam is being selective with the details of “Nebuchadnezzar’s image” in Daniel 2: verse 40 was fulfilled when the Roman Empire conquered the Ptolemaic Empire in 30 B.C., and Pulliam has verse 44 being fulfilled with Jesus’ crucifixion about 60 years later–despite verses 41-43 not being fulfilled in between!}
{In Lesson 19:} Matthew has a different reason [besides the beauty of the temple complex mentioned in the previous paragraph] for telling us about the disciples’ attention given to the buildings. It is because Jesus was about to say, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” (Mt 24:2) Jesus told them this grand temple that amazed them would be destroyed. Keep in mind that they had just heard Jesus prophecy [sic] of destruction in that generation (Mt 23:35-39).
{Ibid. 200. That last statement wrongly assumes that the phrase “this generation” in Matthew 23:36 refers to nothing more and nothing less than Jesus’ contemporaries. So, for the sixth time, see here regarding the phrase “this generation”.}
Since the signs of Matthew 24 are predicted as coming upon “this generation” (Mt 24:34), we need to determine what Jesus meant. Looking back at Matthew 23:36, the condemnation of Jesus in that text was to fall upon “this generation.” Hal Lindsey tells us that the doom in this prophecy would fall upon “the same generation that crucified Him.” That is exactly what Jesus meant, and the original hearers would have understood correctly. Dispensationalists take a different view of that same phrase in Matthew 24:34. Mr. Lindsey says that the Matthew 24 “this generation” phrase refers to the length of time it will take for the prophecy to be fulfilled.
{Ibid. 201. Italics and boldface in original. I agree that “this generation” has the same meaning in Matthew 24:34 as it does in 23:36; but did Pulliam, Lindsey, etc. ever consider that the phrase’s meaning in Matthew 23:36 should in turn be interpreted in light of how the phrase is used in the rest of the Bible? That’s how I interpret the phrase, and that’s how Jesus’ Jewish Disciples and the OT-educated Scribes & Pharisees Jesus spoke to in Matthew 23 would’ve understood it. For the seventh time, see here regarding the phrase “this generation”.}
Who asked, and to whom will it apply?… This generation. In Matthew 24:5-15, Jesus gave a list of signs the disciples should, and should not, watch for, so they could be as certain as looking for fruit on a tree. He then tells them that it will be within this generation. Remember, He said “this generation” to them, not us. They wanted to know when and Jesus told them in this generation.
Since a generation is 40 years, and Jesus was saying this around AD 33, then it would have to be fulfilled by AD 73 (33 + 40). In fact, it was fulfilled in AD 70 when Jerusalem was completely destroyed by the Romans. That would put it within the generation to which Jesus was speaking. Why would I go looking for a future fulfillment when it was so clearly fulfilled in the lives of the generation living when Jesus spoke?
{Ibid. 202. Italics and boldface in original. For the eighth time, see here regarding the phrase “this generation”. As for why we should look for a future fulfillment for the events of the Olivet Discourse: in the Great Temple Discourse (given earlier that same day, per Luke 21:37 & Matthew 24:1-3), Jesus distinguished the end times (Luke 21:8-11,25-35) from the events of the 1st century (verses 12-24; note that Jesus breaks the chronological flow of verses 8-11 by opening verse 12 with the phrase “But before all these things,” — 1995 NASB — need I remind you that I’ve never once seen a preterist exposition of the Great Temple and Olivet Discourses that even attempts to deal with this phrase in Luke 21:12?)!}

{Ibid. 203. For the ninth time, see here regarding the phrase “this generation”.}
The sign of “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory” (Mt 24:30) is not the second coming. We must keep this within the generation to whom it was spoken (Mt 24:34; 23:36). This will be especially easy if you connect the end of Matthew 23 with our current text. Jesus pronounced doom upon Jerusalem within that generation (Mt 23:36). With that destruction in mind, Jesus said, “from now on you shall not see Me until…” (Mt 23:39). Jesus would be seen when doom came upon Jerusalem. If Jesus would be seen in the destruction of Jerusalem, then the sign of the Son of Man in Matthew 24:30 is not the final judgment, nor is it a future judgment on an Antichrist. It was the power and glory of Jesus exercised on that generation for rejecting the apostles and prophets He sent to them (Mt 23:34-35). This was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70. Was it simply the Romans destroying another foreign city? Jesus said, when it comes, it will have been My divine justice in judgment.
{Ibid. 205-206. Italics and boldface in original. Where do I even begin with this one? Oh, I know–say it with me, now: For the tenth time, see here regarding the phrase “this generation”. This also has to be the most blatant example of selective quotation that I’ve noticed in Pulliam’s book so far: he totally omitted what Jesus said in Matthew 23:39 after “until”, which tells us when Jesus was saying they would see him again! “For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!’” (1995 NASB, all-caps in original, boldface added) The statement in all-caps quotes Psalm 118:26a, the context of which starts by prophesying Israel at large rejecting Jesus (verse 22, which Jesus had already quoted to that effect in Matthew 21:42), but then adds (as Jesus also does in Matthew 21:42) that “This is the LORD’S doing; it is marvellous in our eyes.” (Psalm 118:23 KJV)–a sentiment that the 1st century Israelites who rejected Jesus would hardly have agreed with, but that Paul endorsed in Romans 11:30-33! It goes on to extol “the day which Jehovah hath made” (verse 24b ASV), ask God for salvation and prosperity (verse 25), mention celebrating feasts in temple worship (verse 27), and conclude that “His mercy endures forever.” (verse 29c NKJV) What part of this sounds like it was fulfilled in the second destruction of Jerusalem?! It’s far more descriptive of Christ’s second coming! Speaking of which, Pulliam claims earlier in the same Lesson that Matthew 24:4-34 is talking about the second destruction of Jerusalem, while verses 35-51 are talking about Jesus’ second coming {p. 201}. Yet both sections refer to Jesus’ parousia (verse 27, as well as 37 & 39), a word whose only earlier Biblical occurrence was in the disciples’ question that prompted the Olivet Discourse (verse 3); this means that when the disciples asked about this event, they would’ve been using this word with all the connotations and only the connotations that it had in the earlier secular Greek literature. And there’s not a single use of this word in the earlier Greek literature where the ruler isn’t physically present for his own victory party. Hence, both the disciples and Jesus were referring to when Jesus himself would physically return as their victorious King.}
{Also from Lesson 21:} The book of Revelation is about an intense persecution that its first readers would soon endure. As we continue our study, we will learn how this great message would encourage them to be faithful.
There are a lot of symbols in the book of Revelation. We must be very careful as we study its contents. One of the first things we must understand is the fact that the future events it reveals would “shortly take place.” They were “future” when John wrote about them, but that was 2,000 years ago. The time was “near” in the first century, and we must look for a fulfillment of these events in the immediate future of its first readers.
In Revelation 2 and 3, we learn of tribulations that were imminent.
{Ibid. 230. Then why did every patristic writer of the 1st and 2nd centuries who said anything about eschatology regard the events of Revelation 4-22 as still future from their own time? As a representative sampling, see Chapter 16 of the Didache (written in the late 1st or early 2nd century), Chapters 4, 15, & 16 of the Epistle of Barnabas (written sometime between the second destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and the end of the Bar Kochba Rebellion in A.D. 135), the Fourth Vision in Book 1 of the Shepherd of Hermas (written in the 2nd century), Chapters 80 & 81 in Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho” (mid-2nd century), and Chapters 25-30 in Book 5 of Irenaeus’ “Against Heresies” (circa A.D. 180). Why would these people have entertained the idea that something even worse than what Christians had already been experiencing under the Romans was still to come, unless that’s what John himself had actually taught? Moreover, since all of these people (with the probable exception of Irenaeus, whose then-deceased teacher Polycarp had been a disciple of John himself) were writing within living memory of John’s own oral teaching, how could they possibly have all departed from his teaching, in the same direction, starting when John died (if not even earlier), despite their geographic separation throughout the Roman empire (the Epistle of Barnabas was written near Alexandria, Egypt, the Shepherd of Hermas in Rome, Dialogue with Trypho in Asia Minor, and Against Heresies in what is now France), and with no trace of any resistance or rebuttal from any of the elders or apologists in contemporary Christendom? In light of all the checks and balances of 1st- and 2nd-century Greco-Roman society (whether inside or outside the church), that’s impossible.}
{In Lesson 22:} The book of Revelation has a “You Are Here” arrow. We have a disadvantage to the original readers of Revelation. They knew what was going on in the world at the time it was written. To identify the ruler who was sitting on the throne at that time was easy for them. They simply had to look at current events. Fortunately, two-thirds of the way through the book of Revelation, there is a “You Are Here” arrow. For original readers, it put the Roman kings being discussed in perspective. For us, it has the added advantage of telling us where the book is to be dated with respect to who was ruling.
We have already learned that the events revealed in Revelation were about to take place (lesson 21). These timing statements at the beginning and end of the book are not our only help for interpreting Revelation….
[After discussing the present tense of the word for “reign” in Revelation 17:18:] The Dispensationalist must jump forward to the future as he interprets all of this. His interpretation ignores the guiding force behind this book. These things were about to take place. The time was near.
{Ibid. 234,235. I deal with his “‘You Are Here’ arrow” in a future post that I’ve already written. But for now, note that the first sentence in the second paragraph and the  last two sentences in the third paragraph hinge on all the points in the previous quote that I just refuted with simple historical facts. However, we still have to deal with the argument from Revelation 1:3 & 22:10, and we will by the end of this post.}
The people first reading this [Revelation 17:7-11] had a knowledge of the current events that created this monster in John’s vision. As the angel explains this to John, he and his readers would have readily associated the king who was currently on the throne, and would have known that two more kings would arise, and the second would bring a terrible tribulation upon them. They could not have thought that another 2,000+ years must pass before this would be fulfilled….
Remember, it was only necessary that the original readers be able to identify every detail in Revelation. The book of Revelation was not written directly to us, but it is preserved for our benefit.
Conclusion:
We know for certain that the book of Revelation was written about circumstances which the seven churches of Asia would soon face….
Now that we have established the identity of the beast and time frame for fulfillment, we are ready to broaden our overview of the book of Revelation. What was God telling the seven churches of Asia in all of this symbolism? We may not have a specific application for every symbol as they applied to the circumstances of that day, but we can understand enough to comprehend the message of Revelation.
{Ibid. 237,239. Italics and boldface in original. Again, this assumes everything asserted in the previous two quotes, and I’ll explain what’s wrong with his take on the kings of this passage in that post I mentioned in my response to the previous quote. Also, does anyone else think the statements before the “Conclusion:” header and the final sentence of this quote sound like a pathetic cop-out to avoid dealing with (even only “seemingly”) contrary details? And what would be the benefit of preserving chapters 4-22 for future generations of Christians if only the original readers were meant to understand them? Why didn’t God only preserve chapters 1-3 (the ones that supposedly apply to all believers)? And for that matter, why include a warning against taking away any words from the book (Revelation 22:19) if nobody in the future will need to understand so many of them, anyway?}
{In Lesson 23:} Another view [of the number 666] is that the numbers should be used as a calculation of a name. Each letter of the alphabet is assigned a number in this process called “gematria.” The problem most expositors find with this view is the fact that a number is not easily converted into a name. The combinations become seemingly limitless as the number gets larger, but we must bear in mind that it had to make sense to those original readers. If this view is adopted, the most likely calculation for ‘666’ would yield “Nero Caesar” in the Hebrew alphabet and the same in Latin if the marginal ‘616’ is used. It only becomes likely because the first readers would have had no trouble recognizing Nero in the descriptions (especially Revelation 13 & 17).
{Ibid. 247-248. Italics and boldface in original. Aside from the fact that his claim regarding the gematria value of “Nero Caesar” is flat-out wrong (I even do the math to prove it in that future post), Irenaeus made it clear in Book 5, Chapter 30 of “Against Heresies” that neither he nor any of his contemporaries in the late 2nd century knew with certainty what the correct name was–although he offers Evanthas (ΕΥΑΝΘΑΣ), Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ), and Teitan (ΤΕΙΤΑΝ) as examples of names that do add up to 666 in Greek. That couldn’t possibly have been the case if the reference to Nero really was as obvious to early Christians as Pulliam is making it out to be.}
After a long period of time, designated as 1,000 years, the dead are judged and eternity’s existence begins. This 1,000 year period does something very significant for our understanding. Although the events of Revelation were going to take place soon, we have now “fast-forwarded” into the future. Not for a literal span of time, but a great undetermined (symbolic) period of time. The number 1,000 has been a very common expression for an uncalculated sum that is large. A discussion of this and other numbers may be found on pages 261 & 262.
…The seven churches of Asia would soon see the events of this revelation unfold. As we have seen, the events up to Revelation 20 deal with persecution by, and God’s judgment of, the Roman Empire. God already knows how this conflict will end, and whoever is on the side of the Lamb will be victorious through His blood.
{Ibid. 249,250. Italics and boldface in original. Wait, how did God pour out his wrath on Rome in the 1st century? I read the entire chapter leading up to these statements, and I didn’t see him go into detail on that. In fact, he outright hand-waves on this point: “Pausing at each plague to identify it in history may not be what the Lord intended for the reader to do….Remember the bowls [in Revelation 16] as God’s judgment poured out on Rome.” {Ibid. 248. Italics and boldface in original.} Surely Pulliam doesn’t believe the judgment on Rome is still ongoing, since he claimed back in Lesson 17 that Daniel 7 teaches us “that the Roman Empire can never be revived. Rome was completely slain. It was annihilated and destroyed forever.” {Ibid. 181. Italics in original.} Also, the patristic writers I cited above who unanimously taught futurism also taught that the 1,000 years were meant literally, and in particular, used it to expound the doctrine of chiliasm (which further shows that they didn’t believe Christ’s second coming was imminent): see Chapter 15 of the Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 81 of “Dialogue with Trypho” and Chapter 28, Section 3, in Book 5 of “Against Heresies”.}
{In Lesson 24:} I believe it is helpful to consider what is not mentioned in this passage [Revelation 20]. Here are a few things that are commonly read into this text:

• The Beginning of Christ’s reign.
• Second coming of Jesus.
• The bodily resurrection (especially in the greater context).
• A 1,000 year reign on earth.
• The literal throne of David.
• The literal city of Jerusalem.
• Jesus on earth.
• Anyone other than martyrs.
• Fulfillment of Abrahamic promises.
• Fulfillment of Davidic promises.
  That these cannot be in Revelation 20:4 is made clear at the very beginning of Revelation. Revelation 20:4 was about to take place in the near future of the saints first reading this book. The Dispensationalist places these items in our future, 2,000+ years beyond the lives of those first readers. Revelation 20:4 is about none of the items in this list, so let’s see what it is about.
  {Ibid. 263. Italics and boldface in original. This elephant hurling hardly constitutes a rigorous attempt at harmonizing the text with all the others throughout the Bible that do associate the things listed with events mentioned in Revelation 20; this is just exegetical laziness. Remember, we can only conclusively say two accounts with different details are describing two different events if they contain mutually-exclusive details. And none of the items in that list contradict what’s described in Revelation 20 (for example, carefully checking the Greek text of verse 4 shows that martyrs are a subset of all the people mentioned (HIDMF, p. 818, Footnote 1391.)). And of course, I’ve already refuted all his proof-texts for a 1st-century fulfillment that his core argument following the list hinges on (except for Revelation 1:3, which I’ll get to below).}
  There are many questions [about Satan’s last stand] and most people have definite opinions. We must not forget that the book of Revelation is not about clearly describing final events for us to recognize them. The book of Revelation was about the conflict which would soon take place. If God had wanted us to have signs to watch for, He would have described this future time in greater detail. Instead, He has given a simple and brief description of Satan’s final effort, and most importantly, the fact that it cannot prevail. Whatever may take place at the end, God’s people can trust Him to accomplish His will, and provide for their salvation….
  Revelation is about the struggles saints would soon be facing as they approached the second century. While not addressed to us, we can learn much about personal sacrifice for Jesus when Satan tempts and tries us. We can also take great comfort in the expectations it provides the faithful for an eternity of joy and bliss.
  {Ibid. 266. Italics and boldface in original. Regarding the first paragraph, maybe he should consider that the passage mentions Gog and Magog being gathered together for battle (Revelation 20:8), something that Scripture had already prophesied in Ezekiel 38, which does give us some more details. Also, how ironic that Pulliam points out that God didn’t go into more detail in Revelation 20:7-10, yet himself totally ignores the vast majority of all the details throughout the rest of Revelation!}
  {In Appendix 2:} Before Jesus died for our iniquities (Isa 53:5 & 11), he prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 24:1-34). He told the disciples that it would take place within that generation. This was fulfilled in AD 70. This second destruction of Jerusalem and its temple would be the result of iniquity (Mt 23:34-39), just as the first destruction was. After making this prophecy, Jesus immediately began to prophesy the time of His second coming. It would be a time which has no warning (Mt 24:36-51), unlike the destruction of Jerusalem, which would be attended by warning signs (Mt 24:5-15).
  {Ibid. 275. FOR THE ELEVENTH AND FINAL TIME, see here regarding the phrase “this generation”. Also, I already explained above that Luke 21:12-24 prophesied events of the 1st century (including the second destruction of Jerusalem), and that verses 8-11 & 25-35 are about the end times, covering the same events as Matthew 24:4-25:46 & Mark 13:5-37.}

FINALLY–that was an ordeal. And I’m sure you were getting sick and tired of all the repetitiveness in Pulliam’s arguments, too! But to be fair, Tim Warner placed his finger on the main reason why preterists come off as being so obnoxiously repetitive with these arguments about “nearness”: they don’t have much else to offer for their position!

The weight of the preterist interpretation stands almost exclusively on the statements in the New Testament regarding the nearness of Christ’s coming. Preterists insist that such statements as, “behold I come quickly,” demand that Christ’s coming occur in a very short period of time, within the lifetimes of at least some of the Apostles. But in holding this opinion, they are forced to deny the plain sense of the details of Christ’s coming. 

Rather than Christ’s appearing in the clouds in power and glory, with all nations of the world witnessing the event, Christ is said to have come invisibly in the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. Consequently, preterists hold mostly to an allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. Not only prophecy, but even historical narratives in some cases.
{Italics in original. Boldface and underlining mine.}

Warner was talking about full preterism in the context, but Pulliam’s handling of Revelation shows that this statement is accurate for partial preterists, too! Indeed, Lesson 24 in Pulliam’s book, especially his treatment of Revelation 20:4-6, is sickeningly allegorical–sickening because it can sound so believable to readers who don’t know any better.

Revelation 1:3 — A “Slam Dunk” For Preterists?

But while Pulliam brought up the phrases “some standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom” and “this generation” ad nauseum, preterists also seem to be particularly fond of the argument Pulliam made regarding Revelation 1:3 (back at the start of this post). For instance, check out these comments on a blog post from a partial preterist (who I’ve found to be very Biblically-solid on several other topics) where the author is responding to some attempted rebuttals to his view:

The same is true of Rev 1:1’s “must soon take place”, 1:3’s “the time is near”, and 1:7’s “every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him”. I have never heard those verses explained in a satisfactory way from the Futurist view. (And the view that they mean it will happen quickly when they do happen might work in 1:1 – though very poorly – but it certainly doesn’t fit 1:3 or 1:7.)

If you can offer a literal explanation (as you prefer) for how those verses fit with the Futurist view, I would be open to changing my mind.

{Comment posted by Berean Patriot on May 18, 2023. Italics in original.}

To Rev 1:7, that’s a reasonable alternate explanation. I don’t see it as stronger than my understanding, but neither is it weaker. Your understanding is less literal, but equally valid.

To Rev 1:1, My copy of BDAG (arguably the most respected Greek Lexicon) has “soon, in a short time” as the intended meaning in Rev 1:1, and adds “at once, without delay” as well. Given the context of Rev 1:3, that makes the most sense and is supported by BDAG. In fact, the sense of “without delay”/soon {sic} fits in every place the word is used in the NT, while the sense of “It will happen whenever, but it’ll happen speedily whenever it does happen” doesn’t occur.

To Rev 1:3, did you forget to mention this one?

{Comment posted by Berean Patriot on May 20, 2023. Italics in original.}

His remark on Revelation 1:7 in the second comment referred to the view that the phrase “those who pierced Him” referred to Jews in general. (See also Zechariah 12, especially verses 9-11, which mentions that “they will look on Me whom they have pierced” (1995 NASB) as something that will happen on the same day as the Battle of Armageddon and the Day of the Lord. Since my view places the resurrection of all the deceased faithful throughout history on the Day of the Lord, this would include, among others, Jews who were baptized and remained steadfast after Peter mentioned that they had crucified Jesus in Acts 2:36-41. So those particular believers, once resurrected, will indeed “look on [Him] whom they have pierced”!)

As for his remark that there’s no instance in the NT where the word τάχος has “the sense of ‘it will happen whenever, but it’ll happen speedily whenever it does happen’”, I partially agree with this. I agree that baking “it will happen whenever” into the definition is a stretch (note that unlike Traditional Dispensationalists, I don’t believe the events in Revelation could happen “whenever”; I make this perfectly clear in Appendix D of my upcoming book). As for the idea that the sense of “it’ll happen speedily whenever it does happen” doesn’t occur anywhere in the NT, that’s just assuming what you’re trying to prove, as can be demonstrated from looking at the other 7 occasions (yep, there’s that few of them!) where this word is used in the NT. The sense of “happening speedily when it does happen” works just fine in Luke 18:8, Romans 16:20, & Revelation 2:5; Acts 12:7, 22:18, & 25:4 could have either or even both senses intended; and the sense in Revelation 22:6 must obviously be the same sense as in 1:1. Again, the word literally means “a brief space of time”; so, between “without delay”, “soon”, or “it’ll happen speedily when it does happen”, any of these interpretations (or in some cases, more than one!) could’ve been intended in every place this word occurs in the NT! The context in each case may certainly emphasize some sense over (or even to the exclusion of) others upon closer inspection, but to exclude one of these senses from consideration at the outset when the Greek word’s definition otherwise allows for it is fallacious.

Now, I also have to give props to the Berean Patriot for calling out someone else who cited an argument made by John Walvoord (someone who Pulliam and I already disagree with on numerous points!) that the Greek word for “the time” in Revelation 1:3, καιρός (G2540), means “season”, “epoch”, or “era”. {Comment posted by G Winston Hammerud on May 20, 2023} When you look up the Strong’s Definition for this word, it means “an occasion, i.e. set or proper time”. So if nothing else, this word connotes a particularly special time (consider the circumstances under which we English-speakers normally use the phrase “dressed for the occasion”). Indeed, in all of the passages the Berean Patriot cited as counterexamples to Walvoord’s erroneous definition {Comment posted by Berean Patriot on May 23, 2023}, “occasion(s)” or “appointed time(s)” would make sense in the context (e.g., it was often used with reference to harvests, which come at set times during the year). Warner renders this word as “the appointed time” in Revelation 1:3 LGV, and I’ve rendered it “occasion” in the title of this post.

But what about the Berean Patriot’s and Pulliam’s claim that “the time is near” rules out any interpretation other than “just around the corner” or “within your lifetimes”? Preterists seem to think this argument from Revelation 1:3 is unassailable. And to a degree, I can’t blame them: as you may have gathered from clicking through to read the comments Berean Patriot was responding to with the snippets quoted above, the average Christian has no good rebuttal to this argument! However, I think I know why the average Christian has no idea how to refute this argument–and by extension, why those who claim that most (or even all) of the prophecies in Revelation were fulfilled in the Jewish-Roman Wars have gotten so much mileage out of it.

The average Christian doesn’t recognize the fact that Revelation draws heavily on the rest of the Bible, especially the Old Testament prophetic books. And if there’s one section of Scripture that Christians in general are the least familiar with, it’s the Old Testament prophetic books! Indeed, the notion of Biblical Precedent is more important in Revelation than in any other book of the Bible–because, being written last, it had all 65 of the other books of the Bible to take precedent from! Thus, one can’t properly interpret Revelation without being well-versed in Old Testament prophecies.

In fact, most Christians can’t even get past the first verse of Revelation without overlooking a phrase that invokes OT passages: “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass: and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (ASV, boldface added). The emphasized phrase wasn’t merely referring to an angel (literally, “Messenger”). This was referring to Jesus himself, using one of the titles the OT had for the pre-incarnate Son of God: the “Angel/Messenger of God/YHWH” (e.g., Genesis 21:17, 22:11,15; Exodus 3:2, 23:20-23; Judges 2:1-4, 13:20-22); the OT also calls the Son “the Messenger of great counsel” (Isaiah 9:6 BLXX) and “the messenger of the covenant” (Malachi 3:1 KJV). Paul confirms this when telling the Galatians that “you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus himself.” (4:14c NIV) The Greek phrase is ὡς ἄγγελον θεοῦ ἐδέξασθέ με ὡς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν – “as / a messenger / of God / you received to yourselves / me / as / Christ / Jesus”; “Christ Jesus” is being equated with “a messenger of God” here, undoubtedly based on the same OT passages listed above.

In the case of Revelation 1:3, we ought to consider how the word for “is near”, ἐγγύς (G1451), was used in prophecies in the Septuagint. It turns out that this word is used with reference to the Day of the Lord in several passages:

Howl ye, for the day of the Lord is near [KJV “is at hand”], and destruction from God shall arrive. (Isaiah 13:6 BLXX, boldface added)

For the day of the Lord is nigh, a day of cloud; it shall be the end of the nations. (Ezekiel 30:3 BLXX, boldface added)

Alas, Alas, Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is nigh [KJV “is at hand”], and it will come as trouble upon trouble. (Joel 1:15 BLXX, boldface added)

Sound the trumpet in Sion, make a proclamation in my holy mountain, and let all the inhabitants of the land be confounded: for the day of the Lord is near [KJV “LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand”] (Joel 2:1 BLXX, boldface added)

Noises have resounded in the valley of judgment: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of judgment. (Joel 3:14 BLXX, boldface added)

For the day of the Lord is near upon all the Gentiles: as thou have done, so shall it be done to thee: thy recompense shall be returned on thine own head. (Obadiah 15 BLXX, boldface added)

Fear ye before the Lord God; for the day of the Lord is near; for the Lord has prepared his sacrifice, and has sanctified his guests. (Zephaniah 1:7 BLXX, boldface added)

For the great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and very speedy [ταχύς: “prompt”, “ready”, or “swift”, as discussed earlier]; the sound of the day of the Lord is made bitter and harsh. (Zephaniah 1:14 BLXX, boldface added)

This poses a major problem for those who interpret this word as meaning “just around the corner” or “within your lifetimes” in Revelation 1:3 & 22:10. As noted in my upcoming book (HIDMF, p. 772), every single time “the Day of the Lord” is mentioned in the OT (except for Lamentations 2:22), it refers to the day when the Messiah would conquer Israel’s enemies {I’m presently working on a post that goes into the “Day of the Lord” passages more thoroughly, so I’ll link to that once it’s ready}. Maybe preterists or non-futurist amillennialists could interpret that as happening at Pentecost, or some other time in the Apostolic Age (rather than at the end of the apocalypse, as futurists like myself interpret the phrase); but even if they can overcome all the details in Joel 3 that portray Israel as being in a new golden age after this has happened (a detail that obviously wasn’t fulfilled in the first century A.D.) and explain away the fact that Isaiah 14:1-2 (which the “petuha-cetuma comparison” technique {HIDMF, p. 665} places at the end of the same minor train of thought that begins in 13:1) has God putting Israel back in their land immediately following the Messiah’s conquering of their enemies (something else Pulliam denies will happen, as I already mentioned here), that still won’t fix the problem I’m seeing here.

These prophecies by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Obadiah, and Zephaniah were originally given centuries before Jesus’ earthly ministry. Obviously, these prophets were not telling their audiences that the Day of the Lord would be “just around the corner” or “within their lifetimes”! If the word ἐγγύς didn’t have this meaning in these prophecies, then why should we interpret it as having this meaning in the prophecy of Revelation 1:3?! This problem is present for both those who’d identify the Day of the Lord as Jerusalem’s second destruction in A.D. 70 (at the same time both the Berean Patriot & Pulliam place “the appointed time”), and those (such as Pulliam, per p. 150 of “In the Days of Those Kings”; the Berean Patriot has yet to clearly explain how he interprets “the Day of the Lord”) who admit that the Day of the Lord will take place at the time of the still-future judgment by fire at Jesus’ second coming, yet insist that the book of Revelation (or at least most of it) has nothing to do with that (which makes the time from the LXX statements about the Day of the Lord being “around the corner” even further removed from the time they’ll be fulfilled, while leaving the presumed time gap between Revelation 1:3 and its presumed “appointed time” in A.D. 70 practically instantaneous by comparison!)

Here’s another way of looking at it. If we are to understand this word as meaning “just around the corner” in all of these contexts, then God essentially started by saying through Obadiah: “The Day of the Lord is just around the corner!” Then through Joel: “The Day of the Lord is just around the corner!” Then through Isaiah: “The Day of the Lord is just around the corner!” Then through Zephaniah: “The Day of the Lord is just around the corner!” Then through Ezekiel: “The Day of the Lord is just around the corner!” Decades and/or centuries passed between these people, by the way! (While the dates I got from this website are only approximate — not to mention built on assumptions I disprove in my book — the general order is legit enough for my purposes here.) But then in Revelation, God supposedly concluded this pattern by saying “the appointed time is just around the corner… I didn’t mean ‘just around the corner’ any of those other times, but this time, I actually do!” What would that say about whether we should trust what God tells us?!

A Better Understanding

The only resolution to these problems is to conclude that in all of these contexts, the word is being used in another sense. Look again at how the KJV rendered the Hebrew word in some of the instances above: “is at hand”. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon supports this rendering by providing the etymology of ἐγγύς: “from ἐν and γυῖον [limb, hand], at {literally, “in”} hand” {Content in brackets by Thayer. Content in curly brackets mine.}. Just like its Greek counterpart, the English phrase “at hand” can have the sense of “near in time” (as we’ve accepted for ἐγγύς up until this point–for the sake of argument, of course), or the sense of “prepared”. Consider when a business executive asks an analyst during a meeting “Do you have the numbers at hand?” He’s not asking “Can I get the numbers from you shortly after this meeting is over?”, but “Do you have the numbers ready for discussion?”.

In the case of Revelation 1:3 & 22:10, the sense of “the occasion is prepared” is that when these events would happen had already been decided by God. This interpretation also works in all of the OT prophecies referenced above, in light of something else God said through Isaiah:

remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
(Isaiah 46:9-10 ESV, boldface added)

In summary: Revelation 1:1 & 22:20 should be interpreted as saying the events would occur “suddenly”, and play out over “a brief space of time”. 1:3 and 22:10 should be interpreted as saying the appointed time is “prepared”, so the events are certain to occur according to the timetable God had in mind from the beginning. The alternative view of these verses being promoted by Pulliam, the Berean Patriot, and others who try to say the events of Revelation were fulfilled in the first century A.D. (including downright heretical full preterists) can only be maintained by ignoring the precedent set by the Old Testament prophets.