Redefining ‘Quickly’ and Adding Gaps to Make a Prophetic System Work

Brock Hollett’s book Debunking Preterism opens with a discussion of “time texts” like “near,” “at hand,” “shortly,” and “quickly” and seven particular passages where the words appear in the book of Revelation (1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20). He writes that these “time statements appear in the introductory and closing sections of the Apocalypse.” He claims that “[t]his type of literary device is an ellipsis or parenthesis. This device functions to inform the readers that the issue of the nearness of the Lord’s coming is intrinsic to the book’s main theme.” Hollett used to be a preterist. He switched teams, and like dispensationalists who need gaps, Hollett needs them too.

When you see the word “parenthesis,” think dispensationalism. Dispensationalists describe the church age as a parenthesis, “[a]n intercalary period of history, after Christ’s death and resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, has intervened. This is the present age, the Church age…. During this time God has not been dealing with Israel nationally, for they have been blinded concerning God’s mercy in Christ…. However, God will again deal with Israel as a nation. This will be in Daniel’s seventieth week, a seven-year period yet to come.”[1] Harry A. Ironside described it as The Great Parenthesis: The Mystery in Daniel’s Prophecy.

According to dispensationalism, God is now dealing with His Church, His “heavenly people.” God is not, according to dispensationalism, dealing with Israel, His “earthly people.” The promises made to Israel are “postponed.”

An ellipsis means something has been left out, and a parenthesis means something has been added to separate one era from another. There is no mention of either an “ellipsis” or a “parenthesis” in Revelation. Hollett is reading into the book of Revelation something that’s not mentioned. The same is true for those who find a gap in time of nearly 2000 years, the antichrist, and the antichrist making and breaking a covenant with the Jews in Daniel 9:24-27. Hollett doesn’t offer any contextual evidence for his “ellipsis” or “parenthesis” claim. Revelation forbids adding to (parenthesis) or taking away (ellipsis) what was revealed to John:

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book (Rev. 22:18-19).

Hollett goes on to comment that “preterists correctly teach that these word groups ‘soon’ (ταχύ/tachu) and ‘near’ (ἐγγύς/engus) frequently convey the idea of temporal nearness and likely do in the particular context of the book of Revelation, yet preterists define these words in a particularly restrictive manner that differs from the historical undersanding of these texts.” Not “frequently convey” but always convey the idea of temporal and spatial nearness.

Some commentators argue that the parable of the woman and the unrighteous judge is an exception. It’s not. The unrighteous judge in Luke 18 gives justice to the widow in her lifetime! She receives justice before she dies. The point of the parable is to show how God brings about justice for His elect in a timely manner. He will not delay. “I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly [τάχει/tachei]” (18:8). If the woman received justice from the unrighteous judge in her lifetime, then how can we say that God acts “speedily” when nearly two thousand years have passed since John and the seven churches in Asia Minor were told that the “time is near” and that Jesus was “coming quickly”?

Hollett correctly notes that preterists consider these time words to be important when they appear in a passage related to prophecy. He accuses preterists of using time words as “the primary weapon in” their “arsenal.” It’s not preterists who define the above time words “in a particularly restrictive manner”; it’s the Bible that does. Notice that he says that preterists differ from the “historical understanding of these texts.” What we are looking for is the biblical understanding of these texts. Hollett appeals to “historical understanding” in other places. The Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible.

Time indicators aren’t weapons. These words are found in God’s Word, where they must be interpreted by God’s Word. Determining what these words mean is crucial to interpreting any passage, not just prophetic ones.

He notes that “most of these texts convey the meaning of nearness or imminence.” If this is true, and it is, then the words near and shortly mean “near” and “shortly”; otherwise, why would God reveal these words to the authors of the New Testament if He meant something else by their use? If these words don’t refer to “nearness or imminence,” then what other words should the Holy Spirit have used if He really meant nearness or imminence? Hollett doesn’t say. In fact, no critic of preterism has ever answered the question: If God didn’t mean “near” when He used a word that means “near,” then what other word that means “near” would He have used if He really meant “near”?

Hollett’s assessment of the preterist’s insistence that specific time words are crucial in identifying the “when” of prophetic fulfillment is absolutely true. Given this admission, there shouldn’t be a debate. In the end, Hollett equivocates on the meaning of “near” and “quickly.”

It’s untrue, however, that “the entire system of preterism is built around the primacy of the time indicators.” For example, the Olivet Discourse uses the word “near” in two verses (Matt. 24:32-33). But there’s much more in the chapter that indicates that the events described therein were to take place before that generation passed away. Anyone familiar with a preterist interpretation of the chapter knows that audience relevance (the repeated use of the second person plural: 24:6), comments about the destruction of the then-standing temple (“not one stone here”: 24:2, 15, 33), limited (local) geography (“then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains”: 24:16), local living conditions in Israel (Sabbath restrictions and flat roofs: Acts 1:12 and 24:17-20), definition of the meaning of “near” (leaves on a tree means summer “at the door” defines near: 24:32; James 5:8-9), historical events confirmed in Scripture such as famines (24:7; Acts 11:28), earthquakes (Matt. 24:7; 28:2; Acts 16:26), and false prophets (Matt. 24:11; 1 John 4:1), the extent of the gospel’s reach (Matt. 24:14; cp. Rom. 1:8 [κόσμος/kosmos]; 10:18 [οἰκουμένη/oikoumenē]; Col. 1:6 [κόσμος/kosmos], 23; 16:25-26), related time indicators related to audience relevance (cities of Israel and those standing here: Matt. 10:23; 16:27-28), and the consistent meaning of “this generation” (refers exclusively to Jesus’ contemporaries: Matt. 24:34; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 23:36; Luke 21:32) are also interpretive clues for a preterist interpretation of prophetic texts.

Hollett claims that the evidence he presents demonstrates that “preterism fails to consider the time statements in their proper biblical framework and historical understanding.”

Hollett begins his study of the time statements with the book of Revelation. My study of the time statements begins with how words like “near,” “shortly,” and “quickly” are used elsewhere in the New Testament, something Hollett does not do. The words “soon” and “near” are used in the New Testament for events that are close in terms of time. For example:

• John 11:29: “And when she heard it, she arose quickly [ταχὺ], and was coming to Him.”

• John 11:31: “The Jews then who were with her in the house, and consoling her, when they saw that Mary rose up quickly [ταχέως] and went out, followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there.”

• John 13:27: And after the morsel, Satan then entered into him. Jesus therefore said to him, “What you do, do quickly [τάχιον].”

• John 2:13: “And the Passover of the Jews was at hand [near] [ἐγγὺς], and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.”

• John 6:4: “Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand [near].”

• John 7:2: “Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was at hand [near].”

• John 11:55: “Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand [near], and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the Passover, to purify themselves.”

Doing something quickly (ταχὺ) in the above passages does not allow for an extended period of time. The action that was done quickly happened in a short period of time. Quickly does not mean that when a person decides to do something—whether in a short or long period of time—it will be done fast. If an employee says, “I’ll do what you ask soon,” and then waits three months, he or she has not done the assigned task. When the employer inquires, “You said you would do it soon. Why hasn’t it been done?” The employee answers: “Soon means that when I act, it will be done quickly. The time in between the assignment and the job does not figure into the meaning of ‘soon’ and ‘quickly.’ When I eventually do the job, I will do it fast.” James Glasgow offers a helpful analogy:

“Wait for the Lord from heaven (after 1000 years); Behold, I come as a thief (after 1000 years); Go ye out to meet Him (after 1000 years); Come, Lord Jesus, quickly (after 1000 years),” etc. etc. … For it is not in our day that the promises of coming quickly were given, but in the day of the apostles; and from their standpoint they must be interpreted.[2]

The book of Revelation uses the word taxos (Rev. 1:1; 22:6) and taxus (2:5, 16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20) a total of nine times. We find in Revelation 11:14 that the “third woe is coming quickly.” Futurists like Hollett believe Revelation 11 describes events of the last days during a concentrated period of seven years. If “quickly” and “soon” can mean an extended period of time of nearly 2000 years (so far), then how should the use of “quickly” be interpreted in Revelation 11:14 for the futurist? If “quickly” can mean nearly 2000 years in Revelation 1:1, then it should mean the same thing in 11:14, and yet, what’s being described in 11:14 happens in a short period of time. Given Hollett’s definition of “quickly,” the time between the past two woes (9:12) and the woe to come could be thousands of years, and yet the time span of Revelation 4-19 is said to be only seven years.

The time indicator words in Revelation should have the same meaning throughout Revelation as they do every other place in the New Testament (Matt. 5:25; 28:7-8; Mark 9:39; 16:8; Luke 18:8; John 11:29; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20).

---

[1] E. Schuyler English, A Companion to the New Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1972), 135. Emphasis added.

[2] James Glasgow, The Apocalypse: Translated and Expounded (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1872), 61.

American Vision’s mission is to Restore America to its Biblical Foundation—from Genesis to Revelation. American Vision (AV) has been at the heart of worldview study since 1978, providing resources to exhort Christian families and individuals to live by a Biblically based worldview. Visit www.AmericanVision.org for more information, content and resources

Source: https://americanvision.org/posts/redefining-quickly-and-adding-gaps-to-make-a-prophetic-system-work/