Does "Soon" Mean "Soon?"
Copyright © 2003-2004 by Michael A. Fenemore - Revised:
2004 Jan 04
The
book of Revelation in the King James Version of the Bible begins with this
prologue:
The revelation of Jesus
Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified
it by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and
of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed is he
that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those
things which are written therein: for the
time is at hand. (Rev. 1:1-3)
Many
scholars have demonstrated that Revelation was probably written in the A.D.
mid-sixties.1 Proponents of this date are in a position to offer
historical events as a possible fulfillment: the devastation of
1. Some suggest the original Greek for "shortly" does not really mean
that at all -- it means "suddenly." It's argued that thousands of
years might elapse before the events of Revelation are fulfilled, but when they
do take place, they will occur suddenly. This interpretation is offered to
defuse the sense of urgency any unbiased reader would naturally be feeling upon
reading "things which must shortly
come to pass." But should we not hesitate to discard the work of the
translators? If "shortly"
means "suddenly," why did they agree on "shortly?" Granted, no translation is perfect. However,
numerous versions have been produced over the last four centuries and they
consistently reaffirm the King James interpretation of the Greek:
The Revelation of Jesus
Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must shortly take place…Blessed is he who
reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which
are written in it; for the time is near. (Rev. 1:1-3, NASB)
The revelation of Jesus
Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place…Blessed is the one who reads the words of this
prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in
it, because the time is near. (Rev. 1:1-3, NIV)
Popular
prophecy writers and T.V. evangelists consistently promote the
"suddenly" interpretation, but translators steadfastly refuse to
cooperate. The eminently qualified scholars behind our modern New International
Version have not given an inch on this issue. They have rendered the Greek for "shortly" as "soon" -- not a hint of
support for the "suddenly" proponents. Even if we relent and accept
"suddenly" as the intended meaning, we soon collide with another
obstacle in verse 3: "…the time is
at hand." The NIV renders it, "…the
time is near." What now? Have four centuries of Bible translators been
wrong on this too? Perhaps we should be suspicious when someone claiming to
understand Revelation can't get past the introduction without radically
redefining keywords. John's vision came with a sobering warning:
…if anyone takes words away
from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree
of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (Rev. 22:19, NIV)
Some
don't consider taking words away from scripture to be an issue as long as they
insert their own words as substitutes. Readers are cautioned to carefully
consider the consequences should it turn out that God does not approve of this
practice: "God will take away from
him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in
this book." No doubt, some will carelessly assume this does not mean
what it says either. (The NIV will be quoted exclusively from here on.)
2. Many Christians are less willing to stray from
the translation provided. They will admit that "soon" must actually mean just that, but with a very
significant twist. They reason this way:
…With the Lord a day is
like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Pet. 3:8)
They
suggest that words like "soon"
and "near" in prophecy
should be interpreted from God's perspective, not ours. Is this valid? Should a
{1 day = 1,000 years} model be adopted to interpret Revelation's timing
indicators? Consider the context. No matter which date is preferred, the
circumstances are essentially the same. During the sixties, as well as the
nineties, Christians were suffering unspeakable persecution under the Romans.
Anyone refusing to worship the Emperor was put to death. Those most fortunate,
Roman citizens, simply had their heads cut off. Others were torn apart by wild
animals or burned alive. Suddenly, in the midst of this holocaust, an
encouraging prophecy appears:
The revelation of Jesus
Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place... (Rev. 1:1); I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one
will take your crown. (
A
thousand years? If the first-century Christians interpreted all these promises
through a {1 day = 1,000 years} filter, it's difficult to see how they would
have been encouraged. They were in constant fear of Roman authorities who were
hunting them down for immediate execution. It's hard to believe they would have
been impressed by news of something to occur a thousand years or more into the
future. It's more likely they took Christ's assurances literally. Here's a
sampling of their expectations:
Grace and peace to you from
God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age… (Gal. 1:3-4); According
to the Lord's own word…the Lord
himself will come down from heaven...the dead in Christ will rise first...After
that, we who are still alive and are
left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the
air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thess. 4:15-17); …the
Lord's coming is near…The Judge is
standing at the door! (Jas. 5:8-9)
Clearly,
they believed Jesus really was coming soon. Their confidence was based on "the Lord's own word" (1
Thess.
Suppose a brother or sister
is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish
you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical
needs, what good is it? (Jas. 2:15-16)
According
to James, moral support that isn't backed up with action is worthless. Yet, the
popular teaching presents the founder of Christianity liberally pouring forth
encouraging words, promising a supernatural rescue, and then doing absolutely
nothing. Is it any wonder critics ridicule Christians for believing in Jesus?
Any unbiased, thinking person would protest, "If Jesus promised all this
to these poor people and then failed to deliver, he is either a colossal
failure or a liar." Why would a prospective convert be willing to trust
such a character? It's amazing that Christian evangelism progresses at all
based on such a "tough sell."
If the word "soon"
doesn't mean what humans would expect it to, all the verses containing it are
meaningless. What purpose do they serve? Jesus might just as well have left
them out because they are completely impotent and hollow. For people watching
their loved ones being slaughtered, empty promises would have been downright
cruel. Doesn't it seem strange that Jesus would give a prophecy to be
understood only from his perspective
when the message was clearly given to humans -- "to show his servants what must soon take place" --
something they were supposed to "take
to heart?" How do you "show" people something by
speaking in terms they can't understand? The predictions in Revelation are
horrific. They include lots of death and destruction. If this prophecy is not
fulfilled, all the predicted calamity will occur in the future -- possibly
within our lifetimes. A lot is riding on our understanding of the word "soon." In fact, it's not an exaggeration
to say that one's entire view on the timing of "end-time" events is
dependent on this single word. If that one word "soon" really does mean "soon," the traditional
prophecy paradigm totally collapses. Nowhere in the Bible are we told to apply the
{1 day = 1,000 years} model to any prophecy. However, as mentioned previously,
the concept does come from the Bible. How can we know whether it should be
applied to Revelation?
Answer: Compare
Revelation to Daniel.
There
is no other book in the Bible more like Revelation than Daniel. Both books
include "end-time" prophecies replete with images of wild,
blood-thirsty beasts, and both mention one enormously significant symbol.
Understanding how it is used clears up all confusion over the words "soon" and "near." We can know whether
God means "a long time" or "a short time." It's no great
secret -- it's easy. He has provided a key to unlock all mystery over this
issue. It's called a "seal."
During the 6th century B.C., the prophet
Daniel received some of the most astonishing visions ever recorded, including
detailed information regarding empires to rise and fall over a period of several
centuries. However, his last vision was somewhat incomplete. Details about "the time of the end" were a
little cryptic:
The man clothed in linen,
who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand
toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a
time. When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these
things will be completed." (Dan. 12:7)
Daniel's
reaction? "I heard, but I did not
understand" (Dan. 12:8a). What did "a
time, times and half a time" mean? The vision did not really make
sense without properly understanding the ending. So Daniel asked, "My lord, what will the outcome of all
this be?" (v. 8b). The response? "…Go
your way, Daniel, because the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end" (v. 9). The vision was
written on a scroll (v. 4), but the seal referred to was not literal. The
contents of Daniel were well known and widely distributed between Daniel's era
and the time of Christ. This seal was figurative. It symbolized a lock on
understanding "the outcome."
The timing was not right. The vision's fulfillment would not unfold for
hundreds of years. Only at "the time
of the end" would it be understood.
This account in Daniel is a clear description of
how God might be expected to handle a prophetic vision that would be fulfilled
after a long time: He would seal it. Now, if thousands of years were to pass
before Revelation's fulfillment, should we not expect to see its visions sealed
as well? Instead we read:
…Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, because the time
is near.
(Rev. 22:10)
How
much plainer could this be? To suggest that Revelation was not fulfilled soon
after it was written denies simple logic and ignores the enlightenment gained
from Daniel. He was given some information regarding who would eventually come
to understand his mystery:
Many will be purified, made
spotless and refined, but the wicked will continue to be wicked. None of the
wicked will understand, but those who
are wise will understand. (Dan. 12:10)
Who
were these people? The answer comes from the mouth of Jesus. He said to his
disciples:
…blessed are your eyes
because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth,
many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it,
and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. (Matt. 13:16-17)
Jesus was revealing the meaning behind the writings
of the prophets. But did he mention Daniel's mystery?
So when you see standing in
the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the
prophet Daniel -- let the reader understand -- then let those who are in
The
meaning of this "abomination that
causes desolation" is clarified in Luke 21:
When you see
Jesus
defined "the abomination that causes
desolation" as "armies"
and told his disciples that at least some of them would live to see these
armies devastating
Later, as severe persecution on the church signaled
that "the time of the end"
was near, copies of John's Revelation began showing up. One of his visions
described a scroll "sealed up with
seven seals" (Rev. 5:1), but there was no delay on the understanding
of this scroll:
…I saw a mighty angel
proclaiming in a loud voice, "Who is worthy to break the seals and open
the scroll?" But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could
open the scroll or even look inside it. I wept and wept because no one was
found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. Then one of the elders
said to me, "Do not weep! See, the
Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to
open the scroll and its seven seals." (Rev.5:2-5)
The
risen Christ was now available to break all seals on all prophetic visions. Is
it possible the scroll mentioned here is none other than Daniel's mystery
scroll? Why seven seals? Recall God's warning to the Israelites when he first
made a covenant with them:
If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over. (Lev. 26:18)
As
Revelation continues to unfold, it becomes clear: This scroll symbolizes the
undiluted wrath of God poured out upon his "holy
people" culminating in "the
seven last plagues" (Rev. 15:1). Daniel's mysterious "time, times, and half a time"
could finally be understood. The historical record shows that Roman armies
ravaged
3½ years = 1
+ 2 + ½ = "time,
times, and half a time"
It
was "the time of punishment in
fulfillment of all that has been written" (Luke
Conclusion
The evidence is overwhelming. In Revelation, "soon" must mean
"soon" and "near"
must mean "near." If God told Daniel to seal his message when referring
to a long time, and then told John not to seal his message, still having a long
time in mind, what symbolism would he have left to use should he want to tell
his servants about something that really would occur after only a short time?
Some suggest that his people should have interpreted his intent as "a long
time" no matter what he said. If so, it would have been impossible for him
to get through to them. He would say, "long time" -- they would say,
"He means a long time." He would say, "short time" -- they
would say, "No, he still means a long time." This is absurd. Surely,
the word of God should not be interpreted in such a ridiculous manner and all
honest readers must reject the {1 day = 1,000 years} model as totally unusable
for understanding Revelation's prologue.
Numerous authors have proved that Revelation must
have been written before A.D. 70. This presents the compelling possibility that
its fulfillment is found in events relating to the devastation of
Daniel's mystery scroll
Was it supposed to be understood when received? No.
Was it sealed? Yes.
Why? The
fulfillment was centuries into the future.
Revelation
Was it supposed to be understood when received? Yes.
Was it sealed? No.
Why? The
fulfillment was near.
Objection: Rev. 10:4 says, "…when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard
a voice from heaven say, 'Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not
write it down.'" Won't that seal be broken at some point in the
future?
Apparently,
not. Daniel was told that his vision would eventually be understood (Dan.
12:9-10). We have no similar promise regarding the message spoken by the seven
thunders. Since John was not even allowed to write it down, it appears to be
sealed permanently.
___________________________________
1. Recommended reading: Before Jerusalem Fell, Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.; Redating the New Testament, John A. T. Robinson; Who is this Babylon?, Don K. Preston.
Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. The "NIV" and "New International Version" trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademarks Office by International Bible Society. Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.