If you're confused by the title of this article, you should be. How can the word "near" mean "not near" in some contexts but "near" in others? Welcome to the world of end-time speculation for fun and profit. If you want to sell a truckload of books on prophecy, speculate that the time when the rapture will take place, the antichrist will show himself, or the battle of Armageddon will be fought is near or coming soon. You don't have to set a definitive date; you only need to suggest that the time is near or fast approaching. If you do this, you are almost guaranteed a prophetic blockbuster. And it doesn't matter that earlier claims of prophetic speculation have been discredited by the passage of time. People have short memories, and there's always some new prophetic claim that can be exploited.
If you want to know when prophetic events in the Bible are to happen, look for time indicators. Some of them are very specific: after three days, in 40 days, after 40 years, at the completion of 70 years. There are less specific time indicators like "near", "shortly", "quickly", and "at hand" that have a definitive meaning. These time words are at the heart of the debate between those that claim that certain prophetic events have already taken place and those who maintain they are yet to be fulfilled. The division between these two views is deep and wide, and yet the implications for interpretivd accuracy are fundamental if the Bible is to be interpreted faithfully. If prophetic events described in the Bible are said to be "near", and "near" is interpreted in a fluid way so that it has no specificity in terms of time, then how is it ever possible to nail down the fulfillment of prophetic events?
Armageddon, Oil, and Terror
Modern-day prophetic speculators live and breathe off the promise that eschatological events are always near. They take prophecies that the Bible says were soon to be fulfilled for first-century readers and reshape them to fit contemporary headlines. As a result, we are always living on the precipice of some near end-time event. This is why modern-day prophecy books sell by the millions. Few people want to know what happened prophetically two thousand years ago, but they do want to know what's going to happen in the next few years. And it doesn't seem to matter that prophecy books are revised every ten years or so to fit the latest headlines. A recent example is the revision of John Walvoord's Armageddon, Oil, and the Middle East Crisis. Even though Walvoord died in 2002, his book has been given new life with a slightly revised title by its new co-author Mark Hitchcock. The title of the new edition is Armageddon, Oil, and Terror.
he first edition of Wavoord's book was published in 1974 in an attempt to explain the latest in "prophetic events," Walvoord wrote, "Each day's headlines raise new questions concerning what the future holds". The book was reprinted in 1976 and then sank without a trace until a revised edition appeared in late 1990 when the six-month build-up for the Gulf War was in its final stages. The new edition reflected changing world events:
The world today is like a stage being set for a great drama. The major actors are already in the wings waiting for their moment in history. The main stage props are already in place. The prophetic play is about to begin...Our present world is well prepared for the beginning of the prophetic drama that will lead to Armageddon. Since the stage is set for this dramatic climax of the age, it must mean that Christ's coming for his own is very near.
What did Walvoord mean by "near"? Does anyone believe that events he described in 1990 might not take place for two millennia? Walvoord's use of "near" was intentional. People eagerly bought copies because they understood "near" to mean "soon to take place", maybe in their own lifetime. The promotion material for the second revised edition assures readers that its content "is as current as today's news...and every prediction rings true." Where have we heard this before? That's right. More than 30 years ago in the first edition of the book! Why does a prophecy book have to be revised? Why didn't Walvoord see today's events in 1976?
At the Door
In Revelation 1:1, John was shown "the things which must shortly take place." Why must they "shortly take place"? Because the reader is told that "the time is near" (1:3). Jesus defines "near" to mean "at the door" (Matthew 24:33). James writes that "the coming of the Lord is at hand," and he defines "at hand" to mean "right at the door" (James 5:8, 9). If the purpose of Revelation was to demonstrate that the events of the book were a prophetic certainty that could occur at any time, John could have been told to write, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His bond-servants the things which must take place." This wording would have had the effect of expressing necessity without committing to any time parameters, the very thing dispensationalists claim the Bible teaches. Revelation uses this construction in several places (4:1; 10:11; 17:10; 20:3). But by adding "shortly", Jesus is telling Revelation's first readers that not only are those coming events a certainty, they will happen quickly because "the time is near."
