Revelation Bible Commentary
Now that we have in brief set each of the respective views before us, in our previous Revelation Bible commentary let us dig down a little deeper to offer critique on the Premillennial Preterist view. McKenzie wrote extensively on this view in an article posted on the Preterist Archive. He argues that full preterism has a few glitches in the fulfilled millennium in A.D. 70. One of his main arguments is that two of the seven churches are promised blessings that extend beyond A.D. 70 and are therefore experienced in the millennium. We set forth his argument below.
Revelation Bible Commentary of Russell & Mckenzie
Mckenzie offers James Stuart Russell’s argument that the end of the millennium is the one exception to that which must shortly come to pass in the book of Revelation. Already we are expression concern. But his reason for rejecting it is based upon presupposition, not scripture. It amounts to nothing more than he objects, because he objects! We examine more of their Revelation Bible Commentary below.
“Some interpreters indeed attempt to get over the difficulty [of the end of the millennium not being one of the things that were at hand when John wrote] by supposing that the thousand years, being a symbolic number, may represent a period of very short duration, and so bring the whole within the prescribed apocalyptic limits [of AD 70]; but this method of interpretation appears to us so violent and unnatural that we cannot hesitate to reject it. The act of binding and shutting up the dragon does indeed come within the “shortly” of apocalyptic statement, for it is coincident, or nearly so, with the judgment of the harlot and the beast; but the term of the dragon’s imprisonment is distinctly stated to be for a thousand years, and thus must necessarily pass entirely beyond the field of vision so strictly and constantly limited by the book itself. We believe, however, that this is the solitary example which the whole book contains of this excursion beyond the limits of “shortly;” and we agree with [Moses] Stuart that no reasonable difficulty can be made on account of this single exception to the rule. We shall also find as we proceed that the events referred to as taking place after the termination of the thousand years are predicted as in a prophecy, and not represented as in a vision. Indeed the passage, chap. 20:5-10, seems evidently introduced parenthetically, interrupting the continuity of the narrative, which is again resumed, as we shall see, at ver. 11. James Stuart Russell, The Parousia pg. 514 emphasis mine. “[dm]”
Revelation Bible Commentary Visions Contain Time Prophecies
We happen to disagree with both Russell and McKenzie, and suggest that no such exception exists. The best way to demonstrate this is to examine the arguments set forth to uphold it to see if they fulfill their purpose. His Revelation Bible commentary falls short of proof. Note that he asserts Revelation 20: 5-10 as parenthetically inserted prophecy versus part of John’s vision. There is no rule of exegesis which says that a prophecy cannot be contained within a vision. In fact, many prophecies were given as visions. The scene on the Mount of Transfiguration was a vision and so said Christ, 17:9. Yet, Peter said it was a sure word of prophecy.
“For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty…And so we have the prophetic word confirmed…” (2 Peter 1:16, 19). The coming of the Lord is certainly a prophecy. Peter said it was confirmed in the vision of the transfiguration. Thus, to argue that Rev. 20:5-10, is not a part of the vision because it may contain prophecy is incorrect. Such is not accurate revelation bible commentary.
We might also add that the vision of the transfiguration certainly interrupted the continuity of the narrative, i.e the discussion of Christ with Peter, James and John. Nevertheless, it did not change the fact that the vision contained prophecy nor the does it affect the timing of the prophecy within the vision.
Tracy VanWyngaarden, in his excellent refutation of premillennial/partial preterism (See at Preterist Archive) points out that in both the Psalms and 2 Peter 3:8, the designation “a thousand years” is clearly likened to a short period of time.
Revelation Bible Commentary – A Day As A Thousand Years
“For David “a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, Or as a watch in the night”. The night watch was divided by three each consisting of about three hours. This short period, taken along with yesterday when it passes by”, and also Peter’s declaration that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” should be sufficient grounds for allowing the full preterist some leeway in his assertion that the thousand years my indeed be indicative of the short forty year inter-advent period from the cross to the second coming in A.D. 70. ” (emp. his) To be continued.