Has Revelation Already Been Fulfilled?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

The question, and what the full system teaches

• The question posed (in the host's frame): there's a school of thought (as the frame presents it), known as 'prism' (the teaching's name as the caption layer carries it throughout), which argues that the prophecies of the two books the frame names have already been fulfilled. Those who hold 'prism' say, that the destruction of Jerusalem, in ad70 (as the letters carry the date), by the Roman armies, was essentially the culmination of prophecy (as the frame puts it). So that there won't be any future tribulation, or other, so-called, end time events. And depending on the degree to which they accept this teaching, some adherents ('some predus', as heard) also don't believe, that there will be a future Rapture, of the church. So my question for you is: is 'prism' consistent with Oneness Pentecostal Theology? And if not, why not? The answer: no. 'prism' is not consistent with Oneness Pentecostal theology ('one is Pentecostal theology', as spoken). So let me explain. And, by the way: there's a little book — I wrote a forward to it, years ago — called upholding our future hope (as titled in the answer). It's still available, at Pentecostal publishing. The editor is George — or Jorge — Medina ('the editor is uh George or Jorge Medina', as the name stands). Upholding our future hope. And so, first of all, let me just explain 'prism'. The full system of 'prism' basically says: that all the passages of scripture, that talk about the coming of the Lord, refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, by Roman armies, in ad70. So: Jesus coming in the clouds, is actually the Roman armies, trampling the city down — the dust of their feet creating clouds. And Jesus is symbolically appearing, in judgment. So we don't look for a future rapture. We are actually living in this time, past all of the events of Revelation: into Revelation 20 — what we would call the millennial Kingdom. We are living in God's Kingdom. So a true adherent ('a a a true predice', as heard) then would say: all the events of Acts — the gifts of the Spirit, speaking in tongues — all that's gone. It's over. We're now living in Revelation 20. So no: that would not be compatible, with Oneness Pentecostalism. However: there was a movement, some years ago, of Oneness Pentecostal preachers, trying to adopt 'prism', and adapt it. And so what it — could be called: partial 'prism'. Because they still wanted to have the gifts of the Spirit. But they wanted this system of 'prism'. And as a practical matter, it became very divisive. You know: we allow lots of Liberty, on interpretation of future events — such as the timing of the Rapture, and so forth. And interpretation of various statements, in Revelation: we have different opinions. And so they took advantage of that — the idea that, you know, people could have different views of the end time ('different views at the end time', as spoken). But they didn't just say: we want to have this view. They basically said: if you don't have this view, you need to leave your church, and come to our church. Because your church is in false Doctrine. So obviously, that became very divisive. Causing people to leave churches. Splitting some Churches. And so the upci took an official position, against all forms of 'prism'.

Scriptures: Revelation 20

Why it fails (1) — it stands on allegory

• So why? Well, first of all: the only way to justify 'prism', is by very allegorical interpretation of scripture. You can't take scripture very literally, or at face value. And while we do know, that the Book of Revelation, for example, has a lot of symbolism: we do still think, it refers to real events. So when there's a symbol, it's a symbol of something concrete. So, while — when I say a literal interpretation — more technically, I would say: we prefer a grammatical historical interpretation. That is: interpret the text, according to its grammatical construction. Interpret it, according to its historical context. And that is described at Great length, in my book: Understanding God's word how to interpret scripture (as titled in the answer). But in layman's terms, we often say: a literal, or relatively literal, interpretation. Simply meaning: take the words, at their ordinary, average, generally understood meaning. But I use the more technical term, grammatical historical. Because we're not denying, that there are symbols. We're not denying, they are figures of speech. But we say: the context will help you determine, when there are symbols, and figures of speech. And those symbols, and figures of speech, still relate to an underlying reality, that's literal, and not spiritualized. And so, to be more concrete, then: the adherents ('the predus', as heard) would have to interpret scripture very allegorically. Basically say: 9 % of the Book of Revelation (as the figure stands in the letters) is already irrelevant, to us. There's no literal Rapture, of the church. There's no literal Second Coming. There's no literal Millennial Kingdom. All that is allegorical. And so: I think we reject that form of interpretation. Because once you go down that road: you can — water baptism could be optional. You know: just about anything we think of, could be explained away, as not real, not necessary. So that's a big problem. Also: it means, the Book of Revelation is irrelevant, for most of the church age. That, basically, by ad70, almost all the Book of Revelation is already fulfilled, and done with. First of all: that also allegorizes so much of Revelation. Because, while the destruction of Jerusalem was a traumatic event — and in some ways may have foreshadowed later events — just sitting down, reading Revelation: all the judgments, and all the Terrible Things. I don't think there's any way, you can say, that was all literally fulfilled, in ad70. You know: yes, that conquest of Jerusalem was traumatic, for the people. But it was not a worldwide tribulation, in the way that we read the book of Revelation. So 'prism' would require us to say: Revelation is rendered obsolete, by ad70. And therefore: when God inspired it, for 2,000 years it's had — had — really no significance. No meaning. No purpose. No value. Whereas The Book of Revelation actually says: blessed are you, if you read this book.

Why it fails (2) — the book was written after ad70, and faces forward

• And there's a historical problem. Because: just about every scholar, of any Stripe, from very conservative to very liberal — they're going to put Revelation as one of the latest books. Probably the end of the first century: the 80s, or even more likely, the 90s. And so then: it would have been written, after the destruction of Jerusalem, ad70. So it wouldn't have been trying to prepare people, for the events of ad70. It wasn't even written then. And it would be foolish, to try to backdate it ('to try to backd it', as heard), and try to put its focus on the back — when it's focused toward the future. And if you look, in Revelation — chapters 2 and three — where Jesus appears to John, and he gives letters to seven churches that existed: he goes on to say, at the end of chapter 1: I'm going to show you the things that are. But I'm going to show you the things that will come. So the Book of Revelation is related to looking to the Future. Not to the past. So I think 'prism' fails: because it requires an extremely allegorical interpretation of scripture, that wipes out the basics of the New Testament Church, such as the gifts of the Spirit. It pretty much makes the Book of Revelation irrelevant. It doesn't take into account, that Revelation was written after ad70, and is future-oriented, rather than past-oriented ('future ored rather than past oriented', as the letters stand). It really removes the literal meanings of the Rapture.

Scriptures: Revelation 1; Revelation 2-3

What it would deny — and the fruit of the partial form

• So: we have first Thessalonians chapter four, where we have a very strong statement of it. It doesn't use the English word rapture. But that says: the Saints will be caught up, to meet the Lord in the air. And the Latin word for Rapture means: caught up ('the Latin word for uh Rapture means caught up', as the explanation stands). So it would deny the literal catching away of the Saints — that's clearly taught, as a future event, in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4 (in its own place, in this section). It would deny the literal second coming of Jesus Christ to Earth — which is described, in Revelation 19. It will — would — deny the literal Thousand-Year reign, of Jesus Christ, on Earth. Where he brings peace and Harmony. Fulfills God's original plan, for Earth. Which we find, in Revelation chap 20 (in its own place, in the first section). It really — the promise of Jesus, in John 14, where he said: I go to prepare a place for you. That where I am, there you may be also. I'm coming to bring you, to that place. And so 'prism' really wipes away, many important Promises of scripture. And once those fall, then you really have no foundation, for many other things. And that's, of course, a brief introduction ('that that's course a brief introduction', as the letters stand). Now: this idea of partial 'prism' ('partial pray', as heard) — trying to weld, you know, Pentecostal theology, with this basically anti- Pentecostal Doctrine: it really doesn't work, as I said. It's not logical. If you're going to accept 'prism', you kind of have to accept the whole system. It's hard to pick and choose, and so forth. It does — so this partial 'prism' does undermine. And you'll find, in practice: churches and Ministers who have embraced it ('Ministers of Embraces have left', as heard) have left our movement. Not only just the organization: but their churches changed. They no longer preach the apostolic doctrine, of the new birth. They no longer preach the apostolic doctrine, of Holiness. They're no longer concerned, for ministerial ethics. They feel perfectly justified, in splitting churches, and undermining people's connection, to their local church. And so their fruit demonstrates, that it's not correct. Now: while there can be a sincere, honest adherent ('a sincere honest predice', as heard) — I'm just saying: when you try to mix it, with Pentecostal Faith, this is the result, that we see. And so instead, we need to firmly believe, and preach: the catching away of the Saints ('the catching way of the Saints', as heard). The second coming, of Jesus Christ, to Earth. The millennial Kingdom. And a real eternal life, in heaven, with the Lord.

Scriptures: 1 Thessalonians 4; Revelation 19; John 14:2-3

Scripture index: Revelation 20; Revelation 1; Revelation 2-3; 1 Thessalonians 4; Revelation 19; John 14:2-3.