I don’t like to be so captious, but with all due respect to an excellent scholar, I really can’t believe Ben Witherington means this. I’m in and out of his book Revelation and the End Times at the moment, trying to write a serious review of it for the Evangelical Quarterly. In his chapter on the parousia he is keen to show that there are “no errant predictions in the New Testament saying that Christ would return during the lifetime of those Christians who lived in the first century A.D.” (27-28). He’s very selective in the texts that he considers, but what really surprises me is his argument that the adverbial phrase en tachei in Revelation 1:1 means not “soon” but “quickly”. The ESV, for example, reads: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place.” Witherington thinks it should be translated “what must happen in a hurry, or with dispatch, or quickly”.
The phrase occurs again at the end of Revelation, when the angel says to John, “These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must en tachei take place” (Rev. 20:6). We also have the assurance that the Lord Jesus is coming tachu (20:12, 20). Are we really to suppose that what is being said here is that the catalogue of apocalyptic events that we find in Revelation will all happen in a hurry? Or that Jesus, when he eventually comes, will come in great haste—even though it may be millennia after Revelation was written?
No exegetical evidence for the view is provided. The phrase certainly should at times be translated “quickly” or “speedily”. Peter in prison is struck on the side by an angel, who tells him to “Get up quickly” (Acts 12:7). “Soon” wouldn’t make sense here. But “quickly” still has the sense of “straightaway”. Don’t hang around. The situation is urgent. Similarly, Paul is told by Jesus in a vision to “get out of Jerusalem en tachei“—meaning “straightaway”, “as quickly as possible”, because his life is in danger (Acts 22:18). When Festus says that he intends to go to Caesarea en tachei, he does not mean simply that whenever he gets round to making the journey, he will travel at great speed. He means that he will go there “shortly” (ESV), in the near future. Paul writes to Timothy that he hopes to come to him en tachei (1 Tim. 3:14). He means “soon”, not “Oh, whenever… but you can be sure I’ll turn up short of breath.” The same connotation of urgency can be illustrated from the use of the phrase in the LXX.
The simple adverbial form tachu is found only once in the New Testament outside Revelation. Jesus teaches his disciples to “Come to terms tachu with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison” (Matt. 5:25). He means urgently. Don’t leave it too late.
So the book of Revelation is framed by the assertion that the events it describes will happen “soon”, as a matter of urgency—if not expressly within the lifetime of its readers, at least within a historically relevant timeframe.
And if the exegetical evidence is not enough, we need only to keep reading through to 1:3, where John writes that those who keep the words of this prophecy are blessed “for the time is near”. Oddly, this verse escaped Witherington’s notice.
Is it, therefore, an “errant prediction”? No, of course not. The apocalyptic events described in Revelation up to the inauguration of the thousand year period have reference to the early historical horizons of the church—the destruction of Jerusalem and the overthrow of Roman pagan imperialism. The symbolic “coming soon” of Jesus is part of that realistic scenario—a coming to judge and a coming to deliver his people from persecution.
Comments
I was with you until you said: "Is it, therefore, an “errant prediction”? No, of course not."
Of course it was an errant prediction. Read everything about the kingdom in context and it is hard to come to any other rational conclusion.
It was a time of great tumult. Many Jews were gripped with apocalyptic fervor. The prophecies of Isaiah and Daniel were coming true in their lifetime! (Sound familiar?)
John the Baptizer preached holiness, not for individual salvation, but because a nation of holy Israelites would prompt God to intervene in the here and now. Jesus followed by announcing his ministry in the context of the healing of the sick and freeing the captives.
He wasn't setting up a new religion with an existential message for the next few milenniums. The crowds, the healings the excitement weren't about a new philosophy of salvation to be enacted in the distant future. He was ushering in nothing less than a new world order that would come when god intervened pretty darned soon.
He even said as much, if you believe Matthew's Jesus. He gave them instructions for what to do when the end came. It would have been bizarre to say that to people if you expected the end in 2000 years. When he died, his disciples asked, "is now the time?" They didn't have questions about the what, only the when. And they had signed up for action.
Paul was so convinced time was up he told people not to get married. Peter apparently said the end is near. It's not just a snappet taken out of context. It is the context, which is something you are pretty good at.
So in the end the overwhelming probability is that Jesus was errant. Paul was errant. Peter was errant.
The question is what do we do with that. We can say, "well if all isn't true none of it is." That leads to agnosticism or hunkering down like Witherington (who BTW isn't even close to being a fundamentalist, which is much much worse) and denying that the obvious truth is staring you in the face.
Or we can accept that the facts are what they are and develop a more humble faith based on the idea that there are many mysteries and limitations on what we can know, including in the bible.
To be honest, Paul, that strikes me now as a rather outmoded analysis of apocalyptic language, motivated by the desire to discredit the New Testament’s vision of the future. I don’t see anything in what you say that precludes the view that the language is meant to redescribe intrinsically historical events as acts or signs of divine intervention. In fact, I don’t get the impression that you’ve even taken that possibility into account. In your view, what is the objection to thinking that the visions of wrath, judgment, deliverance, and vindication that make up New Testament apocalyptic applied to historical events in a realistic future?
Because that isn't how people operate. As you rightly emphasize, the writings have a specific audience in mind with a specific narrative. They weren't written as theological texts with an intended shelf life of forever.
So if you say to your friend "the end is near" or "evacuate your house before the flood," the chances are pretty good that you are giving them instructions on something you think is going to happen to them in their lifetime. If someone finds that letter a hundred years later, the odds are a billion-to-one that you didn't intend to give instructions to them.
All the facts fit the idea that the people first century thought their world was about to change radically. Whether that discredits the NT is up to individuals to decide. It certainly discredits an incorrect historical analysis, IMO.
Ben Witherington and N.T. Wright are wrong.
“The Lowdown On God’s Showdown” demonstrates that predictions of a soon coming final judgment are found throughout the New Testament, starting with the words from Revelation that you cited in your blog post:
http://secweb.infidels.org/article86.html
Biblical scholars as diverse as James D. G. Dunn and Bart Ehrman (as well as Craig Hill, author of “In God’s Time”), agree that OT prophecy changed to apocalyptic and Jesus made predictions of more than just a theological or political this-worldly transformative nature.
Dale Allison has been engaging non-apocalpytists for decades, including a critique of Wright’s views.
Edward Adams produced a massive work that took Wright to task for misinterpreting or ignoring data concerning end times predictions in the first century. Here’s a scholarly review of Adams’ work published in The Society of Biblical Literature:
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6312_6793.pdf
Thom Stark summed up the case against Wright’s preteristic like view in a chapter in The Human Faces of God.
Robert M. Price has an excellent chapter contra preterism and also mentions apocalyptic in his book, The Paperback Apocalypse.
John Loftus (atheist), citing Dale Allison and some others, summed up the apocalyptic Jesus case in a chapter in The Christian Delusion.
Ed, I read your article. I agree that the New Testament speaks unequivocally of impending or approaching judgment. I do not agree, however, that it understands this approaching judgment to be the end-of-the-world:
So in my view, the New Testament uses the language of prophecy and apocalyptic (for the most part) not to predict the end-of-the-world—that assumption may be going out of fashion amongst scholars. Rather it is used to give shape to a vision of a historical future that will include the revolt against Rome, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, the confession of Jesus as Lord amongst the nations, the ending of persecution, and the vindication of those who remained faithful to their Lord even in the face of death.
Beyond that, it seems to me, there is the thought that justice will finally be done, that the creator will have a final victory over death and evil, that there will be a new heaven and a new earth (Rev. 20-21). But that is pushed into a distant future, after a symbolic thousand years, and should not be confused with the much more pressing historical expectations.
The most compelling presentation of the time statements that I've read is one in which the statements are placed on a timeline. In Acts, about 30AD, Peter mentions that God will send Jesus back but with no particular timeliness. By about 55AD, Paul is saying to the 1st Corinthians that the "time is short". In the prison Epistles from the early 60's AD Paul is saying that "The Lord is at hand." By 1st John, presuming a dating in the late 60's AD, John is saying that they are in the "last hour". In "Christianity's Great Dilemma" Glenn Hill plots 34 examples of this increasing immediacy, the trajectory of which is aimed straight at 70AD. You don't have to buy into any particular brand of preterism to see accept the power of these statements
"Soon" (whether imminently or hurriedly) is associated with different kinds of "coming" of Jesus in Revelation. Jesus warns of a personal "coming soon" of judgement to the church at Ephesus if it does not repent - 2:5 (no hint of AD 70 or a 'second coming' here); likewise against the Nicolaitans and those who host them at Pergamon - 2:16; an indeterminate "coming soon" at Philadelphia - 3:11 (against the 'synagogue of Satan'?).
In the light of these imminent, yet non-AD 70 "coming soon" promises, the "what must soon take place" of 1:1 and the "coming soon" of 22:7, 12 and 20 have to be assessed. I don't think it is always to possible to say that they always refer to AD 70, or judgement on Rome, or that they always refer to Christ's future return.
That Revelation is not entirely about what must take place "soon" in relation to the 1st century is clear from Chapters 20b -22, the historical indeterminacy of 17 - 20a, and frequent suggestions of future events not fulfilled in the 1st century.
Perhaps rather than seeking definitive answers to questions about history in Revelation, a better approach might be to see it as raising questions and provoking discussion without supplying all the clear answers that we would like.
Good point about the references to Jesus coming (soon) in the letters to the churches. They underline the idea of a “coming” that is a matter of judgment—in this case on the household of God. But what Jesus says to the church in Philadephia is particularly important:
They will be kept from the hour of trial that is clearly understood to be imminent; they are to hold fast to what they have because Jesus is “coming soon”, to vindicate his faithful followers and to enact judgment on their enemies—here presumably Jews. This coming soon of Jesus cannot be separated from the historical experience of the community that is addressed. Notice too that the hour of judgment is coming upon the whole oikoumenē—effectively the Greek-Roman world.
I did make the point in the post that the events that were coming soon ended with the resurrection of the martyrs.
"Soon" in Revelation in relation to the 1st century isn't the whole story though, is it? "Coming" in relation to a Jerusalem/Rome judgement also isn't. Anyone really wanting to do their heads in should visit this subsection of Armageddon books, the preterist section, http://www.armageddonbooks.com/post.html. Then visit the main site with 'hundreds of books' on dodgy interpretations of Bible prophecy. Ben Witherington would be a voice of sanity in comparison.
I don’t really get your point, but the fact that there is an exotic preterist subculture out there should not disqualify what seems to me an entirely reasonable historical argument, that John used the apocalyptic genre to address political-religious matters of considerable urgency that impacted the church as he knew it. Preterism would be much less of a problem if it wasn’t stuck in such an old fashioned idiom and aesthetic.
Actually, some of the preterist arguments are also entirely reasonable and as worth giving attention to as your own, Andrew. It just happened that I had followed up the name of an author mentioned by someone in another contribution, and was directed to the website. But then, I was being entirely mischievous, which in retrospect, was very wrong of me.
My serious suggestion was that just as "coming" means a variety of different things in Revelation, so also does "soon". It not only has a range of meanings in Greek as in English, such as imminently - quickly - urgently - hurriedly etc, but also sits oddly with unfulfilled events which have now become distant future to the 1st century writer and readers of Revelation - as in chapters 20b-22 (and arguably 17-20a, and elsewhere in the book). In the final chapter, where the setting is, now, distant future (to the 1st century writer/readers/hearers of Revelation), the writer brings the words of Jesus: "I am coming soon!" - 22:7, 12 & 20. Wouldn't it be semantic juggling to suggest that Jesus did actually "come" in AD 70 (or whenever), but the rest of what was suggested by his "coming" in chapter 22 hasn't happened yet?
As for me, 'aramageddon' out of here!
Hi Peter and Andrew,
I am just finishing volume II of my book (The Antichrist and the Second Coming: A Preterist Examination). Volume II looks exclusively at the book of Revelation. Granted I am one of those "exotic" preterists (very diplomatic phrasing Andrew ;-) but I think there is some method to my madness. Here is something from the book on the narrative(s) of Revelation.
The Subject of Revelation
Revelation is a very cryptic work; it is quite easy to lose sight of the forest because of the trees. It is thus useful to step back and get an overview of the book. What is the subject of Revelation? Is there a unifying narrative?
A Tale of Two Cities
Beasley Murray notes the following on the subject of Revelation: “Revelation as a whole may be characterized as A Tale of Two Cities, with the sub-title, The Harlot and the Bride." [G. R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, The New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Ronald Clements and Matthew Black (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 315.]
Murray is absolutely right; the basic subject of Revelation is that of two “cities” (Babylon and New Jerusalem) who are also two wives (the harlot is a widowed wife who is about to be destroyed, Rev. 18:7-8; the bride is about to become married, Rev. 19:7-9). As I show below, the two women/cities of Revelation represent the two covenants (the old and the new) and those who were part of those covenants (cf. Gal. 4:21-31).
Johnson writes the following on how Revelation uses the image of a city as a symbol for a community of people: “John’s use of the word ‘city’ from its first occurrence in 3:12 is symbolic . . . A city may be [used as] a metaphor for the total life of a community of people (Heb. 11:10, 12:22; 13:14)." [Alan F. Johnson, Revelation, Bible Study Commentary, ed. Ed van der Maas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 112.] Harlot Babylon represents those of the old covenant community who rejected Jesus in favor of the temple system. She is destroyed and replaced by the new covenant community, the New Jerusalem bride (cf. Matt. 21:33-45; Luke 2:34).
The picture of the harlot is a common Old Testament (hereafter known as OT) image of unfaithful Israel going after the gods and ways of the Gentiles (Lev. 17:7; 20:5-6; Num. 14:33; 15:39; Deut. 31:16; Judg. 2:17; 8:27; 1 Chron. 5:25; 2 Chron. 21:11; Ps 73:27; Hos. 1:2; 2:4; 4:15; 9:1; Jer. 2:20; 3:2, 9, 13: 5:7, 11; 13:27; Ezek. 6:9; 16; 23; 43:7, 9). Of all the OT references to the harlot, Ezekiel 16 is the most germane to the harlot of Revelation. Ezekiel 16 shows harlot Jerusalem being stripped and burned by her lovers (Ezek. 16:37-41), which is what happens to harlot Babylon (Rev. 17:16).
The harlot of Revelation claims to be still a queen, but in reality she is a widow (Rev. 18:7). She became a widow when she had her husband (Jesus) killed. She is finally about to experience the mourning expected of a woman who had lost her spouse (Rev. 18:8). The bride (New Jerusalem, Rev. 21:9-10) represents those who are part of the new covenant community. The harlot is destroyed by the Antichrist (the beast from the abyss working through Titus) and then the bride becomes married (Rev. 19:1-9).
Two Women/Cities Representing the Two Covenants
Revelation often presents concepts that are found elsewhere in Scripture. What is different is that Revelation presents these concepts in more of a picture form. For example, Jesus is referred to in the Gospel of John as the Lamb of God (John 1:29). In Revelation we are not just told of this Lamb (e.g., 6:16; 19:7), we are shown him (Rev. 5:6). Paying close attention to the allusions Revelation makes to other parts of Scripture is a great help in understanding the complex symbols in the book. For example, the central theme of Revelation (the contrast of two women who are two cities) is not something new in the NT; this topic was introduced in Galatians. In Galatians 4 this theme is used as a means of contrasting the two covenants:
In Galatians the new covenant is represented by the Jerusalem from above, the heavenly Jerusalem. This is the exact equivalent of the New Jerusalem, the new covenant bride that comes down from heaven in Revelation 21:2. In Galatians the old covenant community is represented by earthly Jerusalem. This is the exact equivalent of harlot Babylon in Revelation, the great city (Rev. 17:18; 18:21). Earlier in Revelation we were told that “the great city” was where Jesus was crucified (i.e., Jerusalem, Rev. 11:8). As in Galatians (4:29), the one woman persecutes the other woman (the harlot was persecuting the bride, Rev. 19:2). As in Galatians (4:30) the one woman is cast out (the harlot, Rev. 18:21) at the time that the other woman receives her inheritance (the bride becomes married, Rev. 19:1-9).
Galatians 4:21-31 provides a simple narrative for the book of Revelation. Revelation is a book about two women/cites who represent the two covenants. The one woman is destroyed and then the other becomes married. Despite all the complexities of Revelation—and there are many— this storyline of two women/cities who represent the two covenants is relatively straightforward.
The Destruction of God’s Unfaithful Old Covenant People at the Establishment of His New Covenant People
Revelation’s theme of the destruction of God’s unfaithful old covenant people (the harlot) and the establishment of his new covenant people (the bride) is found in Matthew in the parable of the wicked vinedressers:
This is a clear reference to the coming of God at the AD 70 destruction of Israel (cf. Isa. 5). This is what Revelation shows. In Revelation 19 the Word of God comes at AD 70 right after the beast has destroyed harlot Israel (Rev. 17-18). Notice that like the wicked vinedressers, the harlot is guilty of the blood of the prophets (Rev. 18:24). The destruction of Israel using the vineyard motif (i.e., the vine of the land) is shown in Revelation 14:17-20.
The same contrast of two groups of people is found in the parable of a wedding for a king’s son in Matthew 22. Those who rejected the invitation to the son’s wedding are destroyed, and then the wedding goes forward with a new people.
This is the exact scenario shown in Revelation 17-19: the city of God’s unfaithful old covenant people (harlot Babylon) is burned (Rev. 18:8) and then a wedding happens as the new covenant bride becomes married (Rev. 19:1-9). Note that these parables do not show a first-century postponement of the kingdom of God (dispensationalists incorrectly teach that the kingdom was postponed in the first century). At the AD 70 shattering of the Jewish nation the kingdom was taken from the Jews and given to God’s new covenant people (Matt. 21:40-43; cf. Dan. 7:21-27; 12:7; Matt. 8:10-13; Acts 28:17-31; Rev. 11:15-18).
The Destruction of Rebellious Israel and Then
a New Heaven and New Earth
This same theme of the destruction of one people and the establishment of another is found in Isaiah 65-66. In Isaiah 65 God said he would destroy his rebellious old covenant people (“I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people . . . ” v. 2) and would then bless his faithful servants (those who did not seek him, Isa. 65:1-2, 11-16). In Romans Paul quotes Isaiah 65:1-2 and informs us that the two peoples contrasted are ultimately new covenant believers and Israel:
Isaiah tells us that at this time of the destruction of Israel, God would call his servants by a new name and create a new heaven and new earth (metaphorically speaking) with a renewed Jerusalem (i.e., the New Jerusalem bride, Rev. 21:1-2, 9-10).
Earlier in Isaiah the picture of the creation of the original heaven and earth is used metaphorically to symbolize the creation of the old covenant:
The establishment of the new covenant using the symbol of a new heaven and earth with a New Jerusalem is used in Revelation 21-22 to show the full establishment of God’s kingdom. Notice that the new heaven and earth in Revelation is not heaven; there are still sinners in it (i.e., those who are not part of the new covenant bride, Rev. 21:9-10; 22:14-15; cf. Isa. 65:17-20). The new heaven and earth is symbolic of the AD 70 full establishment of the new covenant order, the full establishment of the kingdom of God. I will go into some detail on this in my chapter on the millennium and the new heavens and earth.
Duncan - I felt your extended comment deserved a reply from me, out of courtesy. I can see how you reach your conclusions - about Israel as Babylon in Revelation 17-18, and the 'new heavens/new earth' being the establishment of the new covenant. I think they deserve to be taken seriously. It would take some reflection for me to process your interpretation, but obviously, from your viewpoint, it makes some sense of features of 21-22 which don't seem to harmonise with a 'sinless' new creation.
There are some aspects of 17-18 which don't seem to me to fit your interpretation. 'The beast' is a generic OT image for inhuman paganism (leopard, bear, lion, 'beast' - Revelation 13:2/Daniel 7:4-7), so it's odd to think that a woman who, according to you, represents Israel, rides on the back of a pagan symbol. (But I can already feel your response to this being prepared).
I think that the prostitute represents more than Israel, and even ancient Rome. The prostitute sits among "peoples, multitudes, nations and languages". This suggests a worldwide positioning, which isn't really descriptive of Israel. Taken in conjunction with the judgement of 19, which also feels worldwide in its range and significance, I think that we are looking at the destruction of an underlying world system of all ages, not just the 1st century.
But I'm not dogmatic about it. I still think that part of the purpose of apocalyptic as used in Revelation, is to assure us of the great outlines of God's victory over the enemies of the people of God, but to keep us enquiring about details like the timeframe and precise meaning of some of the key symbols - such as the harlot, 'Babylon', and the beast. I'm quite sure these were applicable and appropriate for the 1st century. I'm less convinced that their significance was exhausted by the 1st century application. Not least because what significance would these events have, other than to give us a history lesson without relevance for today?
Peter,
Thank you for your response. I have always enjoyed your wit and respected your insight. Sorry for the length of my responses. I have been working on Revelation for the last couple years and have written a little over 500 pages. My problem is that I have too much to say. By the way, your position sounds similar to Beale's transtemporal approach.
The OT motif of the harlot speaks of unfaithful Israel going after the ways and gods of pagans--the gentiles (Ezek. 16:23-32 lists some of these pagan nations, I have bolded these vv. below). So the harlot sitting on (whoring with) a pagan beast fits quite well. This motif of God's unfaithful old covenant people as harlot is shown in Ezekiel 16 (cf. Ezek. 23).
Ezekiel 16
The LORD’s Faithless Bride
The gentile nation Israel was whoring with when John wrote was Rome. This relationship would not last, however, as Rome would throw off the harlot and burn her with fire (note, the plagues of the harlot are what happened to Jerusalem in AD 70, Rev. 18:8).
As for what all this means for us today. I see the culmination of Revelation as being the AD 70 full establishment of the kingdom of God (Rev. 11:15-18). I believe the millennium began at that time and that we are (or at least should be reigning with our Lord today). Consider the parable of the minas.
The Parable of the Ten Minas
I see this as speaking of the AD 70 Second Coming. Jesus returns and kills the subjects that did not want him to rule over them (the Jews) and fully establishes his kingdom. Notice how active the kingdom reign is for the servants of the nobleman ("have authority over ten cities"). I believe we should be exercising that authority today (mostly through prayer and sharing God's word and his love).
Duncan, most of us have Bibles. You really don’t need to quote scripture at such inordinate length—it makes the place look untidy. It’s much more helpful if you just make the main points with references and the occasional quotation.
Sorry Andrew,
I am always concerned that people don't bother to look up the references.
I would edit it if I could but I do not think there is an edit button. Is it possbile for you to edit out most of the Ezek. 16 stuff and just leave the bolded parts?
You’re probably right, but if people can’t be bothered to read the Bible, that’s their look-out. Short judiciously chosen quotations would be fine. It’s about keeping things simple and intelligible. Not that I’m one to talk.
My road into preterism really began on the third or fourth trip through the Bible using an audio Bible. I was pretty comfortable with my interpretation of Revelation (Pre-wrath rapture, premillennial, Dispensational) until I kept tripping over the last few chapters. There was no way that I could accommodate actively sinful people and an invitation for those people to enter the gates of the New Jerusalem after the creation of the New Heavens and New Earth. In other words, if the universe had been dissolved to the atomic level in order to be rebuilt with no curse or sin, how in the world can we have sinful people and a remedy for that sin in the eternal state? As powerful as I think that the time statements are, this dilemma was even more troubling. A while later I ran into Chilton, J. S. Russell, Duncan, Don Preston, Andrew, and others within the general preterist community who took this issue seriously. If you haven't considered the implications of the last few chapters of Revelation and Isaiah (which describes the New Heaven and New Earth, not the Millennium) I suggest you meditate on it for a while.
Aaagh! I am not a preterist or part of the preterist community. Please take note. And don’t ask me to explain.
By preterist, I only meant that to mean that you basically see the Olivet Discourse and major portions of Revelation to be in the past for us. I was not trying to associate you with Full Preterism. Sorry for any confusion.
The nearness of the events of Revelation permeate the book. The time was at hand for the prophecies of the book (Rev. 22:10). For example,
The Coming of the Beast was Near
Notice the nearness of the coming of the individual beast (the eighth king) in verses 8-11.
This is not a vague statement that the beast could come soon; it is a clear declaration that he was about to come (Gr. mellei). John has already told his first century audience that the one with the required knowledge would be able to calculate the number of the individual beast (Rev. 13:18). This is consistent with what Scripture says elsewhere. John wrote that it was the “last hour (1 John 2:18) and that the spirit of Antichrist was “already in the world” (1 John 4:3). If the individual beast was about to come, then the Second Coming (when his is defeated) was about to happen (Rev. 19:11-22).53 There was only the short reign of one ruler (the seventh king) between the ruling king when John wrote and the individual beast (Rev. 17:10-11).
The problem that those who say the Second Coming did not happen in the first century have is that they have to put thousands of years in between the existing king when John wrote (the sixth king) and the eighth king (the individual beast that is destroyed by the Second Coming). Unfortunately for them, even saying that the kings here are kingdoms does not work. The seventh king’s/kingdom’s rule was to be short (Rev. 17:10); one can not extend it into thousands of years. If eight kingdoms were in view here, the sixth would be Rome, but what would the short-lived seventh kingdom after Rome be? That would put the coming of Antichrist and the Second Advent shortly after the fifth-century fall of Rome (as there would only be a short-lived kingdom between the fall of Rome and the coming of Antichrist).
William Hendriksen vainly tries to escape this problem with what has to be one of the worst interpretations of a Bible passage ever given by a serious interpreter. He says the seventh king is really a kingdom and represents “all antichristian governments between the fall of Rome and the final empire of antichrist.”54 To try and make the short reign of the seventh king into the very long reign of a number of kingdoms shows the desperate extremes some will go to escape the timeframe that Revelation clearly gives.
As Revelation repeatedly tells us, the time for the fulfillment of its prophecies was at hand when John wrote (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10, 12). One needs to be intellectually honest; either Revelation is correctly saying that the individual beast was about to come (and hence the Second Coming was about to happen) or the book is wrong.