I have always thought that one of the most powerful arguments for the literal fulfillment of prophecy relating to Christ’ s future coming is the fact that prophecy was fulfilled literally at His first coming. I still very much believe this in spite of the fact that some have attempted to dispute this important truth. Those who argue that prophecy will not be fulfilled literally in the future go against God’ s past pattern and have no biblical basis for their claims.

Symbols and Figures of SpeechSome opponents of the future, literal fulfillment of prophecy attempt to argue against future, literal fulfillment by noting that prophecy often employs symbols and figures of speech. This is true, but does not mean that prophecy is not fulfilled literally in history. Literal interpreters have always taken into account symbols and figures of speech. Dr. Charles Ryrie explains:

Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.[1]

Early in Christ’ s ministry, John the Baptist said of Jesus as He approached him: ” Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). John used a symbol to designate Jesus- the Lamb of God. Yet, just because a symbol was used does not mean that Jesus did not literally die, as a sacrificial lamb, for man’ s sin. We all know that he did. John’ s use of a symbolic reference to Christ complimented the point that Jesus came to ” take away the sin of the world” through His actual, sacrificial death. This prediction was fulfilled literally in history.

In a similar way, the Bible uses the term ” beast” throughout Daniel and Revelation as a symbol for the person that is often known as the antichrist. Apparently the symbol of the beast was chosen by God to designate the beastly or animal nature of the antichrist. This does not mean that the beast is just the personification of evil in the world. No, even though a symbol is used to describe this still future human being, it means that the antichrist will display ungodly character as a real historical person. This prophecy will be fulfilled literally, just as was Christ’ s death, as the Lamb of God.

Quotation of the Old TestamentIn the mid-1980s a couple of former Dallas Seminary students, who had abandoned the literal interpretation of prophecy, stepped forward to advance a theory that Old Testament prophecy concerning Christ’ s first coming was not always fulfilled literally, thus, we should not expect a literal fulfillment of prophecy in the future.[2] Curtis Crenshaw wrote the chapter that said there are ” five kinds of fulfillment of the OT in the NT as applied to Christ.” [3]Crenshaw says that the five kinds of fulfillment are: ” direct, typical, analogical, according to sense,” [4] and ” the eschatological Yahweh fulfillment.” [5] Earlier Crenshaw had noted the following statement from Charles Ryrie: ” The prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ . . . were all fulfilled literally. There is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the NT.” [6] Crenshaw provides a list of 97 Old Testament prophecies about Christ’ s first coming (he admits he could have missed some), which he classifies according to the five categories.[7] He then concludes: ” Out of 97 OT prophecies only 34 were directly or literally fulfilled, which is only 35.05 percent! Did not Ryrie say NONE were fulfilled in a non-literal manner?” [8]

In his zeal to undermine the literal fulfillment of prophecy, Crenshaw introduces a red herring that he believes disproves Ryrie’ s contention. But what has he actually done? Crenshaw has taken the way in which inspired New Testament writers quote Old Testament prophesies and substituted this process for the outcome of fulfillment. Crenshaw’ s five ways may or may not explain how New Testament writers quote Old Testament passages, but the quotation of these passages is a whole different matter from fulfillment of the prophecies. By introducing the process of how the New Testament writers quote the Old, as if it were the same as the outcome of the fulfillment of prophecy, he has accomplished a great slight-of-hand for many people. Yet, these are two different issues.

Fulfillment of Old Testament PredictionsRegardless of how an inspired New Testament writer quotes or refers to Old Testament prophecy in the New, the real claim by literal interpreters are that these prophecies were fulfilled literally, as opposed to allegorically. What would a literal fulfillment mean and what would a non-literal fulfillment look like? A literal fulfillment involves something that actually happened in history. Back to the statement of John the Baptist proclaiming Jesus as the Lamb of God, as he points to an actual person- Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus later died on the cross as a sacrifice for our sin. This was a literal fulfillment. A non-literal fulfillment would have been something that did not actually take place in time-space history. It would have been some idea of sacrifice that was not actually realized.

Crenshaw says, ” Ironically, a course I took at DTS [Dallas Theological Seminary] entitled ‘ The Old Testament in the New Testament’ , taught by S. Lewis Johnson, began to open my eyes to the fallacies of the dispensational hermeneutic.” [9] It is clear that Crenshaw has misunderstood and misapplied the information that he was to have learned in Dr. Johnson’ s class, just as the book by he and Gunn is filled with similar distortions concerning dispensationalism even though they both had ample opportunity to accurately learn about the system they now oppose.

It is clear that Crenshaw is misusing the information he gained from the lectures in Dr. Johnson’ s class when one examines the table of Scripture passages he has composed in his book.[10] As the table moves from left to right, he starts with the New Testament quote, then the Old Testament passage from which the quotation originates, followed by his classification of fulfillment. The fact that he starts with the New Testament passage from which the Old Testament is quoted shows that this table that he gleaned from Dr. Johnson’ s class is emphasizing how the passage if quoted in the New Testament, not its fulfillment. This is further recognized when one observes that Crenshaw’ s table includes a number of passage that were not fulfilled at Christ’ s first coming. For example, Revelation 1:7a, compared with Daniel 7:13 was not fulfilled at Christ’ s first coming.

In the early 1990s I saw Dr. Johnson at a theological meeting and discussed with him Crenshaw’ s use of his class material as found in their book. Dr. Johnson said he was familiar with Crenshaw’ s presentation and noted that his former student had twisted his teachings and applied them to say something with which he could not agree. He too noted that his class dealt with how the New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament. Dr. Johnson thought that it was improper of Crenshaw to apply it to whether an Old Testament prophecy was fulfilled literally or not. He was disappointed that Crenshaw had made it appear that he (Dr. Johnson) was in agreement with the spin that Crenshaw had placed on his lectures.

If opponents of the literal fulfillment of prophecy want to make a case for non-literal fulfillment of prophecies at Christ’ s first coming they need to try something other than Crenshaw’ s misguided attempt. They would need to find examples of prophecies that were non-literally fulfilled in the past. But I do not know of one.

ConclusionI believe it is still a true axiom that since the prophecies about Christ’ s first coming were fulfilled literally then that means that the prophesies relating to His second coming will also be fulfilled literally. It may be that symbols and figures of speech are used in giving those prophecies, but just as they did not affect the literal fulfillment of them in the past, so it will be that they will be fulfilled literally in the future. Sir Robert Anderson has said it well:

There is not a single prophecy, of which the fulfilment is recorded in Scripture, that was not realized with absolute accuracy, and in every detail; and it is wholly unjustifiable to assume that a new system of fulfilment was inaugurated after the sacred canon closed. . . . Literalness of fulfilment may therefore be accepted as an axiom to guide us in the study of prophecy.[11]

Even though the prophecies of Revelation talk about a beast and a Lamb, it is not just poetic language discussing the struggle between good and evil in general. These symbols speak of real, future individuals (the antichrist and Jesus) who will literally be engaged in space-time historical events. Prophecy about the future will be fulfilled literally, just as has prophecy of the past. In fact, there is not other way for prophecy to be fulfilled and still have it classified as prophecy. Maranatha!

 

Endnotes
[1] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Press, [1966], 1995), pp. 80-81.

[2] Curtis I. Crenshaw and Grover E. Gunn, III, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow (Memphis: Footstool Publications, 1985).

[3] Crenshaw and Gunn, Dispensationalism, p. 16.

[4] Crenshaw and Gunn, Dispensationalism, p. 15.

[5] Crenshaw and Gunn, Dispensationalism, p. 16.

[6] Cited in Crenshaw and Gunn, Dispensationalism, p. 13 from Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 88.

[7] Crenshaw and Gunn, Dispensationalism, pp. 16- 22.

[8] Crenshaw and Gunn, Dispensationalism, p. 22 (emphasis original).

[9] Crenshaw and Gunn, Dispensationalism, p. 13 Even though I was not able to take this course at Dallas Seminary I have listened to tape recordings of the actual class that Crenshaw was in. The class was not about the fulfillment of prophecy, but as the title accurately depicts, a study in how the New Testament quotes from the Old Testament.

[10] Crenshaw and Gunn, Dispensationalism, pp. 16- 22.

[11] Sir Robert Anderson, The Coming Prince (10th. Edition; Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1957), pp. 147- 48, (emphasis original).

Preterists teach that the Book of Revelation is primarily a prophecy about the Roman war against the Jews in Israel that began in a.d. 67 and ended with the destruction of the Temple in a.d. 70. In order for Revelation to be a prediction of the future (Rev. 1:1, 3, 11, 19; 22:6-10, 16, 18-20) and if it was fulfilled by August a.d. 70, then it had to have been written by a.d. 65 or 66 for the preterist interpretation to even be a possibility. Preterist Ken Gentry has noted this major weakness when he said of fellow early date advocate David Chilton, ” if it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Chilton’s entire labor would go up in smoke.” [1]Actually, all one would have to do is to show that Revelation was written anytime after the destruction of Jerusalem.

The futurists interpretation is not dependant upon the date of Revelation since it does not matter when these events take place since they are still future to our own time. However, the date of Revelation is essential to the preterist position and explains why they are so focused upon defending an early date. There are two lines of evidence: external (evidence from outside the Revelation) and internal (evidence from inside the Revelation).

External EvidenceToday, the overwhelming consensus of scholarship believes that Revelation was written well after a.d. 70. Most have concluded that Revelation was written around a.d. 95, primarily because of the statement by early church father Irenaeus (a.d. 120-202) around a.d. 180.

We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen not very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.[2]

It is important to note that Irenaeus was from Asia Minor (modern Turkey). The Apostle John was also from Ephesus in Asia Minor. Irenaeus was discipled in the faith by Polycarp who was discipled by the Apostle John. Thus, there is a direct link between the one who wrote Revelation and Irenaeus. This strongly supports the credibility of Irenaeus and his statement. Significantly, no other tradition relating to the date of Revelation developed or gained a following in this part of the world. This is the very area to which the Revelation was given. Later, other traditions developed in the territories of Christendom of a different time of the writing of Revelation. However, these were areas where Revelation was not taken as literally as in Asia Minor. It appears logical that if the theory teaching an earlier date of Revelation were genuine, then it should have had a witness to it in Asia Minor and would have begun earlier than the fifth and sixth centuries. If the early date were really true, then it would have had a 30-year head start to establish itself within early church tradition. However, that is not what happened. Such reality argues against the early date view and is a strong support for the late date view.

Further support for Irenaeus’ statement is seen in some of the early enemies of Irenaeus’ interpretation of Revelation. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius, to name just a few, support Irenaeus’ statement of a Domitian date. They did not believe that the statement of Irenaeus was not clear and should be doubted, as many contemporary preterists desperately contend. Yet all the ancients who were on record concerning this mater accept our understanding of Irenaeus, as do modern translators. It is also not true that early date support goes back to a single individual (although there would be nothing wrong with that since the truth of a matter is often traced back to a single source), since Hegesippus’ (a.d. 150) testimony pre-dates Irenaeus.[3]

” The first clear, accepted, unambiguous witness to the Neronic date is a one-line subscription in the Syriac translation of the New Testament in a.d. 550,” notes Mark Hitchcock. ” Only two other external witnesses to the early date exist: Arethas (c. 900) and Theophylact (d. 1107).” This is scant ” evidence,” needless to say, upon which to draw such dogmatic conclusion, as is often done by many Preterists. On the other hand, Hitchcock notes that the late date ” has an unbroken line of support form some of the greatest, most reliable names in church history, beginning in a.d. 150.

The external evidence from church history points emphatically to the a.d. 95 date for the composition of Revelation.” [4]

Internal EvidenceMany Preterists contend that there are two major reasons from the Book of Revelation itself that provide proof for their earlier date. First, they argue that since John refers to a Temple in Jerusalem (Rev. 11:1-2), then it must have been standing at the time of writing. If still standing, then Revelation was written before the Temple’s destruction in a.d. 70. Next they contend that the seven kings of Revelation 17:1-16 refer to a succession of Roman kings in the first century. Preterists contend that ” one is” (Rev. 17:10) would be a reference to Nero Caesar and ” the other is not yet come” (Rev. 17:10) would be Galba. Thus, while John wrote, Nero was still alive and Galba was looming in the near future. This would mean, according to Preterists, that Revelation was written while Nero was still alive.

In rebuttal to the first Preterists argument, it must be remembered that in the Book of Revelation John is receiving a vision about future things. He is transported in some way to that future time in order to view events as they will unfold. The word “saw” is used 49 times in 46 verses in Revelation because John is witnessing future events through a vision. It does not matter at all whether the Temple is thought to be standing in Jerusalem at the time that John sees the vision since that would not have any bearing upon a vision. John is told by an angel to ” measure the temple” (Rev. 11:1). Measure what Temple? He is to measure the Temple in the vision. Even if there were a temple still standing in Jerusalem, John was on the Island of Patmos and would not have been allowed to go and measure that Temple. Ezekiel, during a similar vision of a Temple (Ezek. 40- 43) was told to measure that Temple. When Ezekiel saw and was told to measure a Temple there was not one standing in Jerusalem (Preterists agree). Thus, there is no compulsion whatsoever to conclude that just because a temple is referenced in Revelation 11 that it implies that there had to be a physical Temple standing in Jerusalem at the same time.

The other Preterist argument is polluted by the same assumption that underlies their previous contention about the Temple. Preterists assume that the line of kings refer to a first century succession of Roman kings and then pronounces Nero as the one to which Revelation 17:10 refers. This is just an assumption and begs the question. John is seeing, recording, and commenting on a vision of the future. Thus, the time frame that he is referencing would be that of whatever time he was viewing the future. This cannot then be used as a proof that he was viewing a particular time frame, without having previously, in some other way, established the period of time that he views in the vision. Preterists have not previously established when such a time frame is to take place. This line of reasoning by Preterists is not an internal proof for a Neronian date for Revelation. All of the alleged proofs for an early date presuppose a preterist interpretation (this certainly has not been established) as a false stating point in which they attempt to argue from.

Regardless of the interpretation of this passage, it cannot be used as a proof for when Revelation was written. This passage is providing a landscape of biblical history of those kingdoms, not individual kings, which have persecuted Israel. The five that are fallen refer to the kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medes/Persia, and Greece. The sixth empire that was reigning at the time when John wrote was Rome. The seventh that is to come will be the future kingdom of the antichrist, known in Revelation as the Beast. This view is consistent with the way in which kings (i.e., kingdoms) are used throughout both Daniel and Revelation. Revelation 17:10, says that the future leader and his empire will have a short life according to the words, ” when he comes, he must remain a little while.” The adjective ” little” has the idea of brevity (Rev. 12:12). God is saying that He has decreed the time of this final empire will be shorter than the six previous. This factor alone would eliminate the possibility of the seven kings being first-century Roman emperors.

The Seven ChurchesOne of the key internal evidences, which does not require positing a particular interpretative approach, is the condition of the seven church in Revelation 2 and 3. Do these churches look more like first-generation churches, which would appear to support an early date, or do they favor a second-generation church, which would support the late date? There are some key evidences that strongly favor a second-generation depiction of the churches.[5]

If John wrote early (a.d. 64- 66) then it is likely that Paul’ s two letters to Timothy, who was in Ephesus at the time, would overlap with John’ s writing of Revelation and his letter to the church at Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7). It would also mean that, ” Paul likely wrote 2 Timothy after John wrote to the church.”[6] The problem is that the error that Christ points out to the Ephesians in Revelation should have surfaced in Paul’ s epistles if they were written around the same time. However, these problems are not evident in Paul’ s writings. Further, it is unlikely that John had moved to Ephesus until after Peter and Paul had passed from the scene. Philip Schaff tells us: ” It was probably the martyrdom of Peter and Paul that induced John to take charge of the orphan churches, exposed to serious danger and trials.” [7]

Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, said that no church existed during the ministry of Paul. Paul died around a.d. 66- 67. Thus, there was not even a church in existence at Smyrna when the early daters say John wrote to them. Needless to say, this strongly favors the late date.

The church of Laodicea would not have had time to develop into the church described in Revelation 3:14- 22 if the early date is the true one. An earthquake devastated the city in a.d. 60. History tells us that it took them 25 years to rebuild. Only the late date view makes sense of Christ’ s statement to church that says, ” I am rich, and have become wealthy, and have need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17). Ten years would have been enough time for such a condition to develop, but it could not have been said of them when they were in the early stages of rebuilding.

John is said to be on the island of Patmos (1:9) when writing Revelation because he was banished there. Yet, Nero put to death Peter and Paul. If Revelation were written during the reign of Nero, then why wouldn’ t John have been killed like Peter and Paul? Banishment was Domitian’ s favorite way to persecute Christians. ” Moreover, we have no evidence of Nero’ s use of banishment for Christians.” [8]

ConclusionSince a preterist interpretation of Revelation requires an early date of the final book in the Bible, preterists go to great lengths in their attempts to make their view appear viable. The Domitianic date is the overwhelmingly accepted view of scholarship in our day and throughout most of church history. Nothing in Revelation itself contradicts such a conclusion. It appears the major reason that preterists believe in an early date for Revelation is that their system requires it. In this instance the saying is true that necessity is the mother of invention. Maranatha!

 

Endnotes
[1] Kenneth L. Gentry, “The Days of Vengeance: A Review Article”, The Counsel of Chalcedon, Vol. IX, No. 4., p. 11.

[2] Irenaeus, Against Heresies, v. xxx. 3

[3] See Mark Hitchcock, ” The Stake in the Heart- The a.d. 95 Date of Revelation,” in Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, editors, The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003), pp. 126- 28.

[4] Mark Hitchcock, ” Date of Revelation,” in Tim LaHaye and Ed Hindson, editors, The Popular Encyclopedia of Bible Prophecy (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2004), p. 337.

[5] The following points are gleaned from Mark Hitchcock’ s, ” Date of Revelation,” pp. 337- 38.

[6] Hitchcock, ” Date of Revelation,” p. 337.

[7] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, [1910], 1971), vol. I, p. 425.

[8] Hitchcock, ” Date of Revelation,” p. 338.