Daniel Harden has written a paper[1] that supposedly, and definitively, defends the Preterist notion that “all these things” (tauta panta) are to take place “quickly” (en tachei) within a few short years of the visions contained within Revelation. Hence, virtually everything is then wrapped up with the Jewish War (66-70 CE) with the Romans, leaning heavily upon the writings of ancient historian, Josephus (c. 91 CE).
Harden, a “full” Preterist, starts off with the such a claim: “The book of Revelation is bookended with the remarks that “all these things” would happen quickly (Rev. 1:1; 22:6) – using the exact same words (en tachei) as in Rom. 16:20. And the events delineated within these bookends include the fall of Satan (Rev. 20:10).” One can note here that he throws in Romans 16:20 on the basis of the “the exact same words” – or the prepositional phrase in Greek, en tachei. The Greek phrase is actually two words, en (in) tachei (speed, fast, quick). One could translate this phrase, “in speed,” “with speed,” etc.
Although Harden does not provide any use of the phrase outside of the NT, he does provide several NT examples along with the cognates of the noun, tachu. Harden wishes to dogmatically affirm that his interpretation is the only interpretation that works, and any other is simply “an attempt to dance around the clear, simple language in its everyday usage.” Let those words sink in: “clear, simple language in its everyday usage.” How did the Greeks use this phrase, since, after all, it’s their language? Is this phrase used outside of the NT literature? Since it can be established that this phrase (and its cognates) is heavily used outside of the NT (including the LXX OT), we can confidently affirm that the NT writers didn’t invent it. How would the original audience (Greeks, or those who knew their own language) have understood it? Finally, if the extreme, catastrophic events (“things”) contained within the visions of John are all surrounding the historical events of the Romans sacking Judea (which happened far outside of the cities John wrote to in Asia-Minor), how could such “clear, simple language in its everyday usage” become so muddled by the end of the first century and second century Greek readers? I am assuming that by “everyday usage” Harden means how the everyday Greeks in the first century (the original audience) would have used it.
Now, to be sure, since the Preterists in general interprets the contents of Revelation as referring to the Jewish War (66-70 CE), and since “these things” are to take place in the extremely near future of the original audience, then Preterists are dogmatically locked into the issues surrounding the date of Revelation. They have no other choice in the matter, and it is not a debatable matter at all for them (even though it is hotly debated in academia). The date of Revelation, for them, is settled by this fact: these things are to all take place within a few short years leading up to the destruction of the Temple. Some date it in 65 CE, some in 64 CE – others, 66, and even some have 70. However, if “these things” (plural) refer to all of the visions (“things”) in Revelation that must “soon” take place, then none of the visions have taken place prior to the author penning these words. That is, since “all these things” are to take place in the future (“very quickly”), then none of them have taken place before. This is a logical deduction.
With these considerations, let us see if Harden’s thesis holds. “When we read the New Testament as a collection of simple letters, written to the common people in the first century, and try to understand them just as written simply, without resorting to some esoteric manipulation or convoluted tap dance, the meaning is clear. The message of the New Testament was – and still is – the Gospel given to the common man. Keep it simple – it was intended to be understood, even by those new saints who could not yet handle anything of substance.” Harden is, again, appealing to the “simple.” What, in effect, he is saying here is that his “full” Preterist views (that everything, including resurrection of the dead, the change of the living, the judgment of the world, the judgment of the wicked, the separation of the righteous, the end of the 1000 years, the new heavens and new earth, and the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven) are all the things that must all be fulfilled within a few short years leading up to 70 CE. And, what must be logically deduced from this claim is that the every day, ordinary, simple Greeks by the end of the first century and those theologians and learned men of the second century were entirely bankrupt of hearing or reading what is so simple to understand! Effectively, then, the church that arose post 70 CE are more or less idiots. This conclusion cannot be denied, and is perfect fodder for our skeptical culture concerning the assemblies of God and His power to guide His people (as he promised he would). If they could not understand what “quickly” means, and that all of Revelation was fulfilled, then how were they even competent enough to know about the Godhead? The Incarnation? What books belong in the Bible?
Here, Harden does not bring any of this up. Having to redefine resurrection of the dead, the change of the living, the judgment of the world, the judgment of the wicked, the separation of the righteous, the end of the 1000 years, the new heavens and new earth, and the new Jerusalem coming down out of heaven as all “things” fulfilled by 70 CE certainly would require “resorting to some esoteric manipulation or convoluted tap dance”! Preterists attempt to minimize this damage, or sweep it aside as a non-issue, but to the academic world which demands rigorous considerations, such waving of the hands will not do.
For example, Ben Witherington III, a very notable NT scholar, writes that Revelation 1:1 could be translated, “what must happen in a hurry, or with dispatch, or quickly.” Further, “In other words, these texts are not making comments on when Jesus is coming, but on how – quickly, suddenly.”[2] Now, the Hyper Preterists will ridicule this to no end. However, Witherington III is highly distinguished in Koine Greek, recognized as such across the board. The fact is, such an interpretation is perfectly in lines with how the original audience may have understood such terminology. It is this fact that the Hyper Preterists dogmatically asserts cannot possibly be the case. This would mean, of course, that someone like Witherington III, a distinguished NT scholar, is a bonehead.
Archibald Thomas Robertson (A.T. Robertson), who wrote the massive, universally accepted work on Greek (and still utilized today as a must read for Greek studies), A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (1451 pages, 1934), would agree with Witherington III’s (and several others) assessment. Full Preterists hate this fact, but it is a fact: En tachei is not a “smoking gun,” absolute, dogmatic proof that the author of Revelation expected all the events in these visions to happen within a couple of years based solely on this phrase. Either that, or Robertson, who is recognized universally as a foundational Greek scholar par excellence, is another bonehead. Now, whenever someone simply ignores these facts, then they can be safely ignored as well. And, ignore it they will because to admit such a fact as presented here puts a pin in their Full Preterist balloon. Again, the Preterists will go to great lengths to demonstrate that there can be absolutely no other exegetically acceptable option for “quickly” and that it can mean only “soon,” and absolutely nothing else. To even “suggest” an alternative invites scorn: you worship the Creeds of Man. This is their tactic.
We may note, too, that this is the tactic of those highly critical of the Bible (like a Bart Ehrman). John envisioned these visions to come to pass “soon.” They didn’t. Therefore, the Revelation is a bogus, failed prediction. I would say the same thing to these critics as well. And, here, they would probably say Robertson has “an ax to grind” (as if they didn’t!). But, impugning motive is not exegesis, and en tachei can still be demonstrated in the literature to mean, adverbially, “quickly,” not “soon.”
Harden even fails to understand a problem of his own making. What I will bring up next is utterly devastating to people like Mike Sullivan, Robert Cruickshank, Don Preston, and Rick Welch, each Hyper Preterist dogmatists. Harden, and Preterists like him, argue that “these things which must soon take place” (Revelation 1:1) are “every single item from the Olivet Discourse” (Harden, p. 5). That is, Matthew 24, the Olivet Discourse (OD) lists “all these things” and that these things are the same things John has in mind when he wrote Revelation 1:1.
Let this sink in. It is argued by them, as noted above, that John wrote in 65 CE or there abouts. Therefore, according to strict logic, “these things that must soon take place” in the future from the time of 65 CE are the “all these things” listed by Jesus in Matthew 24. Conclusion: none of these things could have taken place prior to 65 CE! If John is predicting the “soon” future fulfillment of these things, and they are the same things Jesus mentions in Matthew 24, then all of the things Jesus listed cannot have happened prior to 65 CE. They all must be fulfilled FROM the standpoint of John in 65 CE since John is clearly predicting FUTURE things that must “soon” take place (which means they have NOT taken place PRIOR TO John’s writing). This is a strict, logical deduction that cannot be overturned.
However, Preterists and Full Preterists alike will note that “persecutions” began in and around the time of Stephen’s martyrdom! Stephen was martyred in and around 34-36 CE (given what chronological calendar one follows). Persecution begins (Acts 8), and it is called, “great persecution” (8:1). Isn’t this one of “these things” Jesus noted would occur? Are we not to include this in “all these things” mentioned? Did persecution break out only after John wrote Revelation 1:1?
Preterists will also list “famines” and note such occurrences prior to 65 CE when John wrote Revelation. They will note “earthquakes,” too, citing Josephus, or some other Roman historian prior to 65 CE. They will note wars, like Caligula against the Jews, all prior to 65 CE when John wrote of FUTURE things that will take place “soon.”
Harden is explicit:
“Yet what are the events? In the Olivet Discourse, the events include:
- False Messiahs
- Wars and rumors of wars. Nation against nation, kingdom against kingdom
- Famines
- Earthquakes
- Persecution
- Betrayal
- False prophets
- Lawlessness
- Turning from the faith
- Gospel spread to the earth
All of these are mentioned in Matt. 24:4-8 as precursors to the end” (p. 4).
He has this underneath his own heading in the article: “The events that are to come “quickly””! And, after this list, he writes, “When John said “the things which must occur quickly”, he then wrote down messages to the seven churches (chapters 2-3) followed by the visions of what was to occur (chapters 4-22). And every single item from the Olivet Discourse can be found in the pages of Revelation” (p.5)! THEREFORE, in the Preterist scheme of things, not one thing happened that was listed in the OD prior to the time John wrote in 65 CE! This is an inescapable conclusion, and it completely contradictsthe Preterist/Full Preterist that the fulfillments of what Jesus said in the OD began to be fulfilled with the persecution of the Church in 35 CE! That is, the persecution of the church in 35 CE was not one of the signs! The earthquakes, the famine mentioned by Agabus, the Caligula incident, none of these things were the signs mentioned at all in the OD! The only things that can be the so called “signs” in the OD are the things that MUST have taken place “soon” from the time of 65 CE (when John wrote) to 70 CE when they were fulfilled! The entire book of Acts and everything Paul wrote is discounted in terms of finding some sort of “fulfillment” of the OD prior to 65 CE when John prophesied the very same things that must soon, in the future, take place!
Let me quote Harden again, because the readers who are Preterist/Full Preterist might have a hard time understanding this (“cognitive disconnect”). Harden wrote, “And every single item from the Olivet Discourse can be found in the pages of Revelation.” Therefore, since John wrote that “every SINGLE item from the Olivet Discourse” was to “soon take place” (in the future) from the time John wrote (65 CE), then NONE of ANY “item” mentioned in the OD took place PRIOR TO 65 CE. The logic is irrefutable. And, utterly devastating to Harden’s entire article.
As the article progresses, the logical contradiction appears with clarity: “There is a call in the book of Revelation, as well as throughout the New Testament, to be diligent and watchful. Paul warns the Thessalonians not to be caught unaware. This indicates not just a remote possibility, but a certainty that something was about to happen in their time” (p.6). Paul wrote prior to65 CE. Nothing prior to 65 CE was a fulfillment of any of the “things” that “must soon” take place in the future. Nothing – according to Harden himself!
Now, a good deal of the article is picking quotes from Dispensationalism. Here, the Preterist/Full Preterist would only inform the readers that there are only two choices to be had: Dispensationalism, or Preterism/Full Preterism (the “either/or” fallacy). It is staggering to read so much Preterist/Full Preterist literature (as I have for 30 years) to note this penchant in their work. For them, there is only two choices: Dispensationalism, or Preterism/Full Preterism. They apparently are not aware of the vast amount of material written in the last 50 years that offers a healthy, sobering account for eschatological interpretations other than the two choices they give. Witherington is not a Dispensationalist. Neither is Robertson, nor Wright, nor Dodd, nor Jeremias, nor Ellul, Beckwith, and a whole host of others (including Ladd and Bekker).
There is an equally damning quote Harden uses from Gary DeMar (who doesn’t seem to know what he believes on the matter). I will quote this from the article at length from Harden. These are DeMar’s words: “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—that it will be done fast when a person decides to do something. 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” – Gary DeMar, Brock Hollett’s Attempt to Debunk Preterism (unpublished manuscript)” (p.9).
And, yet, in this light, Jesus supposedly revealed to John in Revelation 1:1 that all the things (plural) in the Revelation in 65 CE had to take place “soon.” Much of “these things” have to do with the events of 70 CE and destruction of Jerusalem and the temple; five years after John was given the revelation! Using DeMar’s (and Harden’s) example, “what employee” would be asked to do something soon in five years? Surely, the reader can see the absurdity. It is this kind of slight of hand, shell game Preterists and Full Preterists play all the time. Their adherents are so glibly and gullibly willing to accept the premise that they overlook the very logical absurdity their own words create! Who, in their right mind, would say something is happening “soon” in simple, every day, common English when it could mean five years from now? And, yet, Robert Cruickshank, a Hyper Preterist, said this very thing to me using the example of someone saying their mortgage was five years away from being paid off, and they used the word “soon”! Well, Mr. Cruickshank, let me quote DeMar to you again: “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.”
If I said, “soon” to my wife and put it off for a day, she would be livid, and rightly so! This is where the Preterist/Hyper Preterist is simply, constantly moving the goal posts. Second, what is often looked over, is that John uses the plural: “things.” Many things. Are each of these things to take place “soon”? Let’s say John has ten “things” he is shown that must take place “soon.” Thing 1 takes place within a week of his writing. Thing 2, a month. Thing 6, two years. We can’t say that “all” of these things will “all” happen “soon” at the same time, right? Thus, thing 1 is a week away and thing 6 is a year away, with thing 8 being three years away until thing 10, the BIG THING (the temple of Jerusalem’s fall) is five years away (if John wrote in 65 CE). Well, which one of these “things” is truly, “soon”? Thing 1. But, if thing 1 is a week away, and thing 10 is five years away, and both “things” are said to be “soon” (as simple English would understand the word, “soon”), then “soon” can mean something a week away, or five years away! But, again, DeMar demolishes this: “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.”
In part 2 of this analysis, I will bring in another alternative to both the Dispensationalist and the Preterist notion of this term, en tachei, utilizing a wealth of material from the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the so called, LXX), and, more importantly, the Hebrew terms behind the Greek phrase. It is to be noticed that Harden’s article does not note one single use of the OT LXX in his article. This, as I will show, is a glaring omission.
[1] “Quickly! Quickly!” by Daniel Harden.
[2] Witherington III, Ben. Revelation and the End Times: Unraveling God’s Message of Hope. (Abingdon Press; Nashville, 2006), 27.
Vigilate et Orate 