The Study of Revelation (Rev. 1:1) Part 4: The Timing of the Apocalypse

 The Revelation of Jesus Christ,
which God gave unto him,
to shew unto his servants
things which must shortly come to pass...
for the time [is] at hand.
[Rev 1:1-3 KJV] 

Revelation 1:1 not only confirms the certainty of the events disclosed, as discussed in our previous post, but it also sheds light on the timing of these occurrences. John communicates to his audience that these events "must shortly come to pass" (Rev 1:1). Subsequently, in verse 3, John reinforces this temporal proximity by stating that "the time is at hand" or "near" (Rev. 1:3). The Greek phrase ἐν τάχει, translated as "shortly" (KJV, NKJV, ASV, DBY, WEB), "soon" (NLT, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB), and "quickly" (YLT) in various versions, has spurred extensive discussion among scholars. As Ladd aptly observes, "These words have troubled the commentators" (Ladd, Revelation, 22). Consequently, interpretations of this challenging text vary widely. In the ensuing paragraphs, we will explore diverse perspectives on this debated phrase. I encourage readers to delve into these viewpoints and form their own conclusions about this intricate text. Following this examination, I will share some of my personal reflections.

View 1: John was Mistaken View

Some hold the view that John was mistaken in his statement that these events "must shortly come to pass"(Rev. 1:1). In other words, some argue that John proclaimed that the events were to take place "soon" meaning "in his day," but unfortunately, he was wrong. For example, W. J. Harrington, in commenting on Revelation 1:1 writes, “When John declares that the time is near, he means that, in his view, the End is soon. Was he, then, mistaken? In one sense, obviously yes. The end did not happen in his day, nor has it occurred nineteen centuries later. What we might learn from him is a sense of urgency" (Harrington, Revelation, 44–45). In another example, David L. Barr notes that the book of Revelation “failed rather spectacularly to deliver on its promise that Jesus would come ‘soon''' (Barr, “The Apocalypse of John,” 39). George Buchanan, in agreement with Harrington and Barr, states, “John thought Christians were then near the end of the tribulation, and it would be only a short time before the predestined period would be over and the nation would be free from foreign rule. . . . John was not expecting to wait a thousand years. Based on Daniel, he expected an end to take place within three and one half years. That did not happen, and John made a mistake. That is all there is to it, and no one should try to claim some infallibly correct interpretation that will absolve John of error” (Buchanan, Revelation, 35–36). These are bold claims which must be examined in light of Scripture. The problem with this view is twofold. First, if the book of Revelation is divinely inspired by God, then John cannot be "simply mistaken." Anyone who believes in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures would argue that their must be more to it than John simply "getting it wrong." Second, as Kenneth Gentry notes, John's "so called error" would "certainly. . . not create a sense of 'urgency' but rather a profound sense of disappointment and disgust akin to those who followed William Miller to the mountain top in 1843" (Gentry, 2020). For obvious reasons, this view should be rejected. To say that John was mistaken is to say that other passages of Scripture could possibly be in error. The present author of this commentary believes that the word of God is inerrant and infallible. In other words, the Scriptures are without error, and any view ascribing error to the word of God should be rejected. 

View 2: The Rapid View

 Others see the meaning behind the Greek word for "shortly"(τάχος) to mean "rapidly." That is, when the events begin to take place they will occur with rapidity and swiftness. For example John Walvoord notes, "That which Daniel declared would occur ‘in the latter days’ is here described as ‘soon’ (Gr. en tachei), that is, ‘quickly or suddenly coming to pass'" (Walvoord, Revelation, 35). Kenneth Gentry, in arguing against this interpretation writes "This interpretation does not offer any encouragement whatsoever. If the Church must wait hundreds and hundreds of years before the events occur, what is the significance of their finally arriving rapidly? Besides the soon-ness embodied in this phrase occurs again in other expressions in 1:3, 19, and elsewhere" (Gentry, 2020). I am in agreement with Gentry here. It seems pointless to say that when the events do take place they will happen swiftly. How swift is swiftly? Seven years? As Beale notes "ἐν τάχει ('quickly') is a deliberate substitute for Daniel’s ἐπʼ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ('in the latter days'; e.g., Dan. 2:28) and connotes neither the speedy manner in which the Daniel prophecy is to be fulfilled nor the mere possibility that it could be fulfilled at any time, but the definite, imminent time of fulfillment" (Beale, Revelation, 181).

View 3: God's Timing View

 This view argues that the events will occur soon according to God’s measure of time. For example, Leon Morris writes, “We must bear in mind that in the prophetic perspective the future is sometimes foreshortened. In other words the term may refer to the certainty of the events in question. The Lord God has determined them and he will speedily bring them to pass. But this refers to his time, not ours, to the quality of the time rather than the quantity. With him one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day (2 Pet. 3:8)” (Morris, Revelation, 46–47). In response to this view Gentry writes, "​​Peter expressly states the fact that God views time differently from man. John does not. We cannot go about interpreting all temporal indicators by God’s estimation of time...Peter is talking about God, whereas John is giving directives to men. Peter makes a theological statement regarding God and his perception of time; John provides an historical directive to men regarding their unfolding hardships. We must not confuse theological truth about God with historical directives to men...Peter is expressly dealing with the objection that certain prophecies have failed because they have yet to occur: 'Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation’ (2 Pet. 3:3-4). Peter is facing the slowness of God’s judgment. John, however, is warning suffering Christians (among which he numbers himself, Revelation 1:9) about what they must expect. He dogmatically declares repeatedly and in various ways that his prophecies 'must soon take place' because 'the time is near.''' ​ (Gentry, "What do Revelation 1:1 and 1:3 Mean?" PostMillenialworldview.com, August 7, 2020). Gentry is right to point out the difference between God's view of time, and John's reference of time. God, as far as time concerns, is always in the eternal now; He is always in the eternal present. If we go to the future, He is there. If we go to the past, He is there. He is in the past and He is in the future. Thus, time to God is always imminent. However, God's people are to live in the tension of "imminence and delay," knowing that God's coming is "soon," and the suffering or persecution they bear is only for a "little while" (Heb. 10:37), in respect to eternity. This gives the suffering Christian hope and confidence to endure such suffering. Knowing Jesus's return is near and that the sufferings they face is only for a "short time" (Rev. 12:12) or a "little season" (Rev. 6:11) -for Satan shall soon be judged- they endure and persevere and rejoice in their suffering.

View 3: The Preterist View

The preterist approach understands the language of "soon" to refer to John's day, and thus, in their view, the events recorded in the book of Revelation (with exception to the second coming and the final judgment) have already been fulfilled. According to the preterist, this fulfillment took place in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. The preterist will argue that John's use of such words and phrases as "soon," "at hand," and "near" all point to an immediate fulfillment for the 1st-century Church. We will discuss the historical connections the preterist interpreter makes as we come to them in the remaining commentary. In my opinion the preterist rightly emphasizes the plain reading of the text, however they ignore the prophetic nature of time throughout the Bible. In my understanding the words "near" and "soon" in reference with the "Day of the Lord," must be considered in a prophetic view of time. For example, it will benefit the reader to examine the time statements in the following verses (Isa. 9:9; 13:6; 13:22; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 3:14; Malachi 4:1; Obadiah 1:15) all of which speak of the Day of the Lord as being "near" in nature. 

View 4: The Prophetic Perspective View

The prophetic view understands the timing of the Apocalyptic events to always be imminent in light of the prophetic view of time. That is, the events of Revelation could begin to happen at any moment and are always near in light of the prophetic view of time. For example, Robert Mounce notes, “John writes that the events that constitute the revelation must ‘soon take place.’ That almost 2,000 year of church history have passed and the end has not yet come poses a problem for some. . . . The most satisfying solution is to take the expression ‘must soon take place’ in a straightforward sense, remembering that in the prophetic outlook the end is always imminent. Time as a chronological sequence is of secondary concern in prophecy. This perspective is common to the entire NT" (Mounce, Revelation, 41). We have already shown that the eschatological "Day of the Lord" is always presented as "near" (see, e.g., Isa. 9:9; 13:6; 13:22; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; 3:14; Malachi 4:1; Obadiah 1:15). The prophetic perspective recognizes that the eschaton is, as Brock David Hollet notes, "always being pressed into the present and portrayed as a 'foreshortened time of the end'''(Hollett, Debunking Preterism). George Eldon Ladd argues that prophetically we should see a tension between the distant future and the immediate future. When it comes to prophecy the future is always immediate, the tension is always imminent. Ladd writes "The problem is raised by the fact that the prophets were little interested in chronology, and the future was always viewed as imminent...the Old Testament prophets blended the near and the distant perspectives so as to form a single canvas. Biblical prophecy is not primarily three-dimensional but two; it has height and breadth but is little concerned about depth, i.e., the chronology of future events.

There is in biblical prophecy a tension between the immediate and the distant future; the distant is viewed through the transparency of the immediate. It is true that the early church lived in expectancy of the return of the Lord, and it is the nature of biblical prophecy to make it possible for every generation to live in expectancy of the end. To relax and say 'where is the promise of his coming?' is to become a scoffer of divine truth. The 'biblical' attitude is 'take heed, watch, for you do not know when the time will come' (Mark 13:33) (Ladd,  Revelation, 22–23).​ Ladd rightly recognizes that in the grand scope of the prophetic timeline, Christ's return is "near," "soon," and "at hand" in every generation of the Church. This is because in the scope of Prophecy we are indeed near the end. The Church has been in the "last days" since the time of Christ's resurrection and ascension, and will be in the "last days" up until His return. Thus, on the prophetic time line the time is "near." As Hollet notes, "The New Testament reflects the eschatological view that 'the end of the age' had arrived during the apostolic period. The apostles taught that they were already living in the 'last days' and 'at the end of the ages' because the Son of God and his eschatological Spirit (i.e., the Holy Spirit) had arrived (Acts 2:16-17; 1 Peter 1:20; Heb. 1:2; 9:26; 1Cor. 10:11)" (Hollet, Debunking Preterism). Hollett goes on to note, "This prophetic perspective portrays 'the end' as pressing into the present age and is divinely intended to compel believers in Jesus Christ to live in continual readiness for His return. The passages conveying nearness function to remind believers of the Lord's admonition to 'stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming' (Matt. 24:42; cf. Matt. 24:36, 44; 25:13)" (Hollet, Debunking Preterism).

​ I believe this view brings forth the greatest fruit in the lives of believers. Those who are always expecting, always ready, always awaiting their Lord's return, will find the greatest reward when He finally does. One must also take into consideration that "eschatological delay is as much a feature of Revelation as eschatological imminence" (Bauckham, "The Theology of the Book of Revelation," 156). We see this delay in the martyr's cry "How long?" (Rev. 6:10-11). Concerning this delay Bauckham notes, "the reader-and more especially, the hearer of an oral performance of Revelation-becomes conscious of the tension of imminence and delay, as the End is constantly approached but not definitively reached" (Bauckham, "The Theology of the Book of Revelation," 156). God's delay is directly tied to God's patience. God is gracious to those who have yet to repent by delaying the coming judgment. The Church, therefore, must live in this tension. We long for the coming of Christ, but we also give thanks for God's patience and mercy on those who have yet to repent and turn to Christ. God in His perfect timing will come. Knowing this truth gives confidence to the Church to live in this tension with hope and assurance of His return.