Days of Vengeance - The Preterist Archive

INTRODUCTION
readers to calculate the “number of the Beast” and
decipher its meaning; in 17:10, one of the seven kings
is currently on the throne; and St. John tells us that the
great Harlot “is [present tense] the Great City, which
reigns [present tense] over the kings of the earth”
(17:18). Again, the Revelation was meant to be
understood in terms of its contemporary significance. A
futuristic interpretation is completely opposed to the
way St. John himself interprets his own prophecy.
Fourth, we should notice carefully the words of the
angel in 22:10: “Do not seal up the words of the
prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” Again, of
course, we are told explicitly that the prophecy is
contemporary in nature; but there is more. The angel’s
statement is in contrast to the command Daniel
received at the end of his book: “Conceal the words
and seal up the book until the time of the end” (Dan.
12:4). Daniel was specifically ordered to seal up his
prophecy, because it referred to “the end,” in the
distant future. But St. John is told not to seal up his
prophecy, because the time of which it speaks is near.
Thus, the focus of the Book of Revelation is upon the
contemporary situation of St. John and his first-century
readers. It was written to show those early Christians
that Jesus is Lord, “ruler over the kings of the earth”
(Rev. 1:5). It shows that Jesus is the key to world
history – that nothing can occur apart from His
sovereign will, that He will be glorified in all things,
and that His enemies will lick the dust. The Christians
of that day were tempted to compromise with the
statism and false religions of their day, and they needed
this message of Christ’s absolute dominion over all, that
they might be strengthened in the warfare to which
they were called.
And we need this message also. We too are subjected
daily to the threats and seductions of Christ’s enemies.
We too are asked – even by fellow Christians – to
compromise with modern Beasts and Harlots in order
to save ourselves (or our jobs or property or tax
exemptions). And we too are faced with a choice:
surrender to Jesus Christ or surrender to Satan. The
Revelation speaks powerfully today, and its message to
us is the same as it was to the early Church: that “there
is not a square inch of ground in heaven or on earth or
under the earth in which there is peace between Christ
and Satan”; 89 that our Lord demands universal
submission to His rule; and that He has predestined His
people to victorious conquest and dominion over all
things in His name. We must make no compromise and
give no quarter in the great battle of history. We are
commanded to win.
A Note on the Text
I do not profess to be a textual critic. Nevertheless, in
order to produce a detailed commentary, it was
necessary to decide one way or another about which
New Testament textual tradition to follow. The
translation in this commentary is based largely on the
recommendations of Hodges and Farstad in their
“Majority Text” Greek New Testament. 90 The basic
arguments for the Majority Text position have been
presented in the works of Jakob van Bruggen, 91 Wilbur
N. Pickering, 92 Harry A. Sturz, 93 and others; 94 they do
not need to be rehearsed here. I do wish to stress,
however, that the issue is not really one of majority (i.e.,
simply counting manuscripts) but catholicity: The
point of the “Majority Text” is that it is the Catholic
Text, the New Testament used by the universal Church
of all ages 95 – in contrast to the so-called “critical text”
of most modern translations, representing a tiny,
variant tradition produced in Egypt.
Overview of Revelation
The following outline is simply a more detailed version
of the covenantal structure mentioned above. The
Revelation is so complex that one is tempted to indulge
in endless structural analyses (some will be noted as we
proceed through the commentary).
There is one further point that should not be missed at
the outset, however. Overlaying the whole book is the
theme of the Bridegroom and the Bride, and the
prophecy is divided right in the middle between these
two motifs. Thus:
I. The Bridegroom, Chapters 1-11: This section
begins (1:9-20) and ends (10:1-7) with visions of
the Son of Man, clothed in glory.
II. The Bride, Chapters 12-22: This section begins
(12:1-2) and ends (21:9-27) with visions of the
Church, clothed in glory.
87. See Louis Bouyer, The Spirituality of the New Testament and the Fathers, trans.
Mary P. Ryan (Minneapolis: The Seabury press, 1963), PP. 120f.
88. J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament
Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
[1887] 1983), p. 366.
89. Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1977), p. 27.
90. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad, The Greek New Testament According
to the Majority Text (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982). That is to
say, where the evidence presented by Hodges and Farstad seems unequivocal,
I have followed it; where it is less clear, I have felt free to disagree.
91. Jakob van Bruggen, The Ancient Text of the New Testament (Winnipeg:
Premier Printing Ltd., 1976); idem, The Future of the Bib/e (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1978).
92. Wilbur N. Pickering, The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1977).
93. Harry A. Sturz, The Byzantine Text-Type in New Testament Textual Criticism
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984). Sturz takes a much more
moderate position than do Hodges, Pickering, and the other defenders of the
Majority Text. His valuable study demonstrates that the so-called
“Byzantine” (i.e. Majority Text) readings are both early and independent.
Thus, while he does not believe that the Byzantine text is “primary,” he
shows that it cannot be regarded as “secondary” either.
94. Cf. David Otis Fuller, cd., Which Bible? (Grand Rapids: International
Publishers, fifth ed., 1975); True or False? The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory
Examined (Grand Rapids: International Publishers, 1973); Counterfeit or
Genuine? –Mark 16? John 8? (Grand Rapids: International Publishers, 1975);
Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended! (Des Moines: Christian
Research Press, 1956, 1973). It is important to note, however, that the
position of the Majority-Text advocates is not quite the same as that of the
defenders of the King James Version (or of the Textus Receptus). The
argument of this latter group is that the true text has been providentially
preserved in the Textus Receptus readings, even in those cases (e.g., 1 John
5:7; Rev. 22:19) where the actual Greek manuscript evidence is either slim
or nonexistent. It is interesting that (in contrast to the rest of the New
Testament) the Majority Text readings for the Book of Revelation are more
often in agreement with the “critical text” than with the Textus Receptus.
95. For this reason, it is most unfortunate that Hodges and Farstad chose to
ignore the readings of the traditional lectionaries in collating their edition
(The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, p. xviii).
31