INTRODUCING:
THE UNIFICATION OF END-TIME THINKING
VIA A SOLUTION OF SYNTHESIS
TO THE PROBLEMS OF THE END TIMES
7
DEMANDING EVIDENCES WHY CHRIST RETURNED AS
AND WHEN HE SAID HE WOULD
by John Noē
Outline
The Enigma and Dilemma of "Non-occurrence"
Seven Demanding Evidences Difficult To Deny
Evidence #1 -- Emphatic Time Statements of Jesus
Evidence #2 -- Equally Emphatic Imminency Statements and Expectations of
Christ's 1st-Century Followers
Evidence #3 -- The Long Biblical Precedence
Evidence #4 -- Fits Pattern of Other Apocalyptic Language
Evidence #5 -- In the Same Way, the Immediate Historical Setting
Evidence #6 -- Follows the Typology of the High Priest on the Day of
Atonement and His Appearing "a Second Time"
Evidence #7 -- It Also Was the Lord's Parousia
What I'm Contending For
Presenter's Postscript
FOOTNOTES
APPENDIX A
This material was originally presented and read as a theological paper at
the
48th Annual Meeting of The Evangelical Theological Society,
November 1996, in Jackson, Mississippi. It was titled:
THE REFORMATION AND
RESTORATION OF JOHN 16:13
|
Why the 1st-century Church
Wasn’t Misled or Mistaken in Their Expectation of Christ’s Return
|
| "But when he, the
Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he
will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is to come." |
|
– John 16:13 |
Biblical scholars agree, almost without exception, that every New
Testament writer and the members of the 1st-century Church expected that Christ would
return within their lifetime. Possessing the Holy Spirit, this immediacy was their
Spirit-guided expectation of imminency. It was the product of the Spirit's disclosing work
(also see Jn. 14:25). But if they were misguided or wrong on such a crux issue as Christ's
return, what else might they have been mistaken about, as well? And, therefore, how can we
possibly trust them to convey other aspects of the faith along to us -- such as the
requirements for salvation, etc?
The Enigma and Dilemma of "Non-occurrence"
For nearly 2,000 years the vast majority of the Church has still been
eagerly expecting, proclaiming and some predicting the "soon" and "any
moment" return of Jesus Christ. All the while, we've struggled with the enigma and
dilemma of "non-occurrence" and tried to maintain the pretense of inerrancy,
infallibility and inspiration of Scripture -- an impossible, if not harmful, balancing
act.
Conservative scholarship postulates that Jesus' coming again has been
delayed or postponed. Liberal scholarship reckons Jesus and the New Testament writers were
simply mistaken or deluded. Other liberals think Jesus never made certain time-restricted
statements in Scripture, but these words were altered or later added by His followers. Of
course, such a conclusion does not remain in isolation. Like gangrene, it spreads and
opens the door to question [and dismiss] the authenticity of many other sayings of Christ,
as well as the whole issue of Bible inerrancy.
Most Christians don't seem to realize the predicament we are in if Jesus
Christ has not come again within the time parameters He Himself specified and as the Holy
Spirit guided the early believers to expect. Informed critics of Christianity have no
trouble seeing right through the strained attempts of Church leaders to explain away the
enigma of "non-occurrence" and our exegetic charades to protect the credibility
and divinity of Jesus in the face of His supposed "failure to return." These
critics also are quite aware of the dilemma "non-occurrence" presents for the
Christian Church and the impossibility of escaping it without being disloyal to Christ:
- Bertrand Russell --
Well-known atheist, Bertrand Russell, in his book, Why I Am Not A
Christian, discredits the inspiration of the New Testament by saying:"I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospel narrative as it
stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one
thing, He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before
the death of all the people who were living at the time. There are a great many texts that
prove it...where it is quite clear that He believed that His coming would happen during
the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was
the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching."
- Albert Schweitzer --
In his book, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Schweitzer
summarized it this way: "The whole history of Christianity
down to the present day... is based on the delay of the Parousia, the non-occurrence of
the Parousia, the abandonment of eschatology, the process and completion of the
`de-eschatologizing' of religion which has been connected therewith."
- Jewish Critics --
Jewish critics contend Jesus didn't complete the entire mission of the
Messiah, though many admit He fulfilled some of it. That's why, in their opinion, He's
definitely not the Messiah. Or, that's why He's only the Messiah for the Gentiles. This is
the Jews' primary excuse for rejecting Jesus and belittling Christianity.
- Muslim Critics --
Most Muslims acknowledge Jesus as a prophet, but seek to discredit His Deity and destroy
the credibility of Christianity by pointing out alleged errors and inconsistencies
contained in the Bible concerning His non-return. They recognize the logical implications
of the Bible's time statements as having a direct bearing on the Messianic and divine
claims of Christ. But Jesus and the apostles must have lied about His imminent return and
other eschatological matters, they argue. Or, if Jesus sincerely prophesied His
time-restricted return and it has not been fulfilled, then He is a false prophet. The net
result is to crumble the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible and open the door for the
acceptance of the Koran and Islam.
- Scoffers --
In the New Testament, Jewish scoffers pointed to the continuation of everything [the
Temple, city and priesthood] as evidence Jesus didn't come back as He promised. No visible
changes were evident. Consequently, there appeared to be no substance to the law-free
Gospel the early Christians were preaching. These scoffers doubted the sureness of
Christ's promise, viewed Christianity as a perversion of Israel's future and mockingly
asked, "Where is this coming He promised?" (2 Pet.3:3-4; Jude 16-19). Peter
speaks quite negatively of these scoffers and their concept of a "delay." Back
then, that delay was only about thirty-some years. The current,
19-centuries-long-and-continuing delay now makes those original scoffers look pretty good,
doesn't it? Then hasn't history proven the scoffers were right?
- Complicity in the Christian Camp --
Many of today's traditionalists, in essence, have aligned themselves with the 1st-century
scoffers. They've become unwilling accomplices of all the above critics. A definite,
similar conclusion exists -- Jesus hasn't returned as and when He promised. The standard
Christian answer has been to insist Jesus will come again [return], someday, and finish
the job. But this proves the critics' point: Jesus was incorrect in His time-restricted
predictions and cannot be the Messiah.
Seven Demanding Evidences Difficult To
Deny
I affirm that the foundational doctrine of the return of Jesus Christ is
non-negotiable. But these critiques from the above informed critics, at least, should stir
some sober reflections and give those of us in the Church cause to pause and reflect. Are
we so blind to the implications of "non-occurrence" and a "continually
delayed" coming of Christ? Is it true? Or, is it a self-inflicted wound? Whichever it
is, it sure has eroded Christian credibility and provided unbelievers all the evidence
they need for concluding that truth does not reside in Scripture or in the Person of
Christ.
Is there a possible solution to this sharp, two-horned dilemma and
extremely troubling enigma of "non-occurrence?" Are there any options that may
have been overlooked? Is there anything different we can offer, especially now as we close
in on the turn of millennium and the possibility of a barrage of more failed predictions
for a circa 2,000 A.D. return? Perhaps the most obvious solution has been staring us in
the face all these many centuries and we've failed to see it.
This theological paper will look at seven scriptural and demanding
evidences why Jesus DID RETURN within the generation which was alive during His
earthly ministry, just as and when He said He would and just as and when the
Holy Spirit guided and told His followers to expect. Is this proposition too
uncomfortable or too threatening to consider? Truth is often a frightening prospect. But
if this is true, then it's the reformation and restoration of John 16:13 that's needed.
So, "Come now, let us reason together" (Is. 1:18).
Evidence #1 -- Emphatic Time Statements of Jesus –
The strongest possible evidence remains Jesus' own, emphatic time
statements. He didn't leave any doubts. His words were clear, concise, and unequivocal.
They were not conditional, elastic or relative. He didn't say "maybe" or
"possibly" or "someday" or "one day" or "in 2,000
years" or "in 10,000 years." Jesus' spoke in a plain, straight-forward
manner to the ordinary people of His day -- not in a complex manner which might only be
understood by trained theologians or linguists. In frequent statements, He confirmed the
certainty and faithfulness of His eschatological coming and locked in its time parameter.
These words of Jesus are some of the clearest in the New Testament, if we take them at
face value. If we try to make them mean something other than what they plainly say, they
are some of the most puzzling. As we read through a few of these verses, honestly ask
yourself, if you had been a 1st-century disciple hearing these words, how would you have
understood them – especially concerning the time of His coming?
Matthew 26:64 -- Quoting from the prophet Daniel, Jesus responded
to and forewarned the high priest and the Sanhedrin saying, "In the future you
shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of
heaven."
Jesus’ "you" was "them." He was speaking in the
first-person, directly to them. Caiaphas, the high priest, and all present were familiar
with this biblical language. They were the ones who would "see" His return in
catastrophic judgment and His glory displayed in the destruction of their precious
religious institutions. How could Jesus possibly have been describing an event some 2,000
years in the future? The text demands immediate impact and fulfillment in their lifetime.
Matthew 10:23 -- While talking with His disciples, Jesus
declared, "But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for
truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the
Son of man comes."
The obvious meaning of Jesus’ words was not to deceive His
disciples, but to assure them that during the persecution which was to soon to come upon
"them," they would not run out of places to flee for safety before He returned.
Matthew 16:28 -- He informed His disciples, "For truly, I
say to you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of
Man coming in his kingdom."
Here, Jesus is describing the same event. As we shall see, a 40-year
period was to transpire between the time He ascended to heaven and came back in His
kingdom. During that time some of His disciples died, but others remained alive.(1)
Matthew 24:(3), 30, 34 -- Jesus plainly linked the time of His
coming to the destruction of the Temple, "At that time the sign of the Son of Man
[Jesus] will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see
the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory... I tell you
the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have
happened."
Jesus here uses the very same phrase His disciples had just heard Him
speak to the scribes and Pharisees when He told them the guilt of the blood of the
righteous would fall upon "this generation" (Mt. 23:35-36). Jesus’
"this generation," in every New Testament usage, always means the contemporaries
of Jesus alive at that time.
Luke 21:6, 22, 27, 32 -- Furthermore, in Luke's gospel, Jesus
pegged the fall of Jerusalem, the end of the Jewish age and His coming as the time frame
for the fulfillment of "all things that are written."
Get the point? I seriously doubt that any of Jesus' disciples or hearers
would have placed His coming in glory outside of the lifetime of some then present. Thus,
the 1st Century should pinpoint when everything Jesus promised either did or didn't come
to pass. If Jesus was wrong, He wasn't inspired, nor a prophet of God (Deut. 18:21-22),
nor the Messiah, either. There is no valid way to escape it. The texts demand it. It's the
teaching of imminency. Even appealing to the unknown time statement, "of that day and
hour knoweth no man" (Mt.24:36; 25:13) doesn't preclude nor override the nearness and
time-restriction factor. After all, how much time can pass before the unknown loses the
nearness of "this generation" and becomes invalid? Certainly not 19-plus
centuries? But just like the 9-month gestation period for the birth of a baby, nobody
knows the day or the hour, either. That's why Jesus gave signs whereby His disciples could
know that these tough times would not last forever and His coming was very close within
that generation, even though they could not know the "day or hour."
For postponement traditionalists, these above prophecies [and others]
concerning Christ's coming have proven especially perplexing. But why fight them? Why not
just take Jesus' time-restricted statements at face value, literally? Every New Testament
writer, the early Church believers and even the unbelieving Jews did exactly that. They
never imagined that He might be referring to a distant coming some 2,000 years from then.
In the words of the old hymn, Tis So Sweet:
"Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus,
Just to take Him at His word,
Just to rest upon His promise,
Just to know, `Thus saith the Lord'"
The facts are, the majority of Christians since Bible times have not
done this. On the contrary, we've tried every means imaginable to reconcile, avoid, get
around, discount, twist, divide up, muddle, or change the obvious and natural meaning of
Jesus' words. The classic example is claiming Jesus' "this generation" means a
"race," or "type" of people, or some unborn "future
generation" – thus abandoning a literal hermeneutic. These non-literal
manipulations of Jesus' clear and concise words and His time statements are necessitated
by our preconceived notions about the nature of His coming. And, since we haven't seen
anything like what we are looking for, we arbitrarily adjust our timing some 19 centuries
and counting, in order to fit our notions of its nature. We'd be better advised to honor
the time indicators given by Jesus and the inspired writers and adjust our notions. It's
difficult, however, to be this objective when we've been subscribing to traditional,
postponement views for so long.
Think about it, though. Why wouldn't Jesus have said what He meant and
meant what He said? Why must we make excuses for Him? Remember, Jesus also said it was the
"evil servant" who says "My Lord delayeth his coming" (Mt. 24:48).
And, the Church has been preaching "delay" for 19 centuries and counting.
Evidence #2 -- Equally Emphatic Imminency
Statements
and Expectations of Christ's 1st-Century Followers
In addition to taking Jesus at His word, we'd be well advised to take
all New Testament writers at their word, too. In the following selected examples, these
inspired writers were not just expressing a hope. They emphatically were declaring
inspired truth. Again, if they were wrong, they weren't inspired:
- James – James told the 1st-century followers of Christ to be
patient "until the coming of the Lord." And that "the Lord's coming is at
hand" (Js. 5:7, 8). With the same language, the arrival of the kingdom of God had
been declared. It arrived within months of being announced by John The Baptist as "at
hand" (Mt. 3:2 Greek: engys -- graspable). Jesus used this "at hand"
idiomatic phrase, too, for the same purpose of declaring close proximity – spatially,
or immediacy – temporally (Mt. 4:17; 10:7; also 26:18, 45, 46; Jn. 2:13). Were James'
readers [and we today] to re-interpret the meaning of James' use of this time perspective
terminology differently – i.e. a 2,000-year elasticity? Or, are we to think that an
inspired writer of the Bible would be trying to fool his audience with a different meaning
of known words? Of course not. He issued no disclaimers. James' "at hand"
demands the same "right there" or "almost right there," immediacy as
all its other uses.
Some interpreters rationalize a long gap of delay by ascribing to God a time scale
different from our own [such as the infamous "a day equals a thousand years" (2
Pet. 3:8) (2)]. Not only does this tactic strip Scripture of its graspable
meaning, it gives it a character of deception rather than revelation. God's Word does not
speak to man according to man's understanding of time and then act according to a
different scale. For God to inspire men to write words that meant nearness and imminence
to man, but in reality meant a long time [multi-centuries], would be deceitful,
double-talk and grossly inconsistent on God's part. If He did this, then Bible time
statements could not be taken seriously and the integrity of Scripture would be impugned.
But we can trust God's time statements, completely. Be assured that God inspired the
writers of Scripture to communicate using human language, that would be clearly understood
in its plain sense by the common person. That's why, when God meant a "long
time," He inspired the use of those type words. In Daniel 8:26, 10:14; 12:2-9, for
example, a "long time" was 400-600 years. In Jeremiah 29:10,28 it was 70 years.
In Numbers 24:17f, the Redeemer was "not near." Whenever God meant a "short
time," He used plain, normal, ordinary imminency phrases and words like "at
hand," "near," "at the door," "soon,"
"shortly," etc. These are terms that communicate time truth to human beings, and
were well understood. Their meanings cannot be stretched a thousand years or more in order
to protect a theological bias or agenda.
No principle of interpretation can grossly elasticize or eliminate such plain statements
of time. If we are willing to take that kind of "liberty" with the time
statements of Scripture, be prepared for someone to say that Jesus isn't necessarily
"THE way and THE truth and THE life" (Jn. 14:6). But only a
way. After all, it's the same "doesn't-mean-what-it-plainly-says" liberty and
destructive logic. Instead, why not just trust James' "at hand" time statement
and adjust our understanding, accordingly?
- The Writer of Hebrews -- "In just a very little while, He who
is coming will come and will not delay," stated the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 10:37).
This time statement, likewise, is indicative of the nearness and certainty of that same
great consummating event. Like the others, it can not be ignored, twisted or lightly
brushed aside. Where then, is the justification for a two-millennia-and-counting gap
between this declaration of imminency, its nearness "as you see the Day
approaching" (Heb. 10:25) and its fulfillment in the lives of this "you"
group? 2,000 years is longer than the covenant nation of Israel even existed. That amount
of time lapse surely must be considered a "delay." Yet, all of Jesus' parables
depicting His coming again included a long interval but only "long" within the
lifetime of its hearers, not long after their deaths or a long time in the history of the
world. Once more, let's not forget it was the evil servant, Jesus said, who says "My
Lord delayeth His coming" (Mt. 24:48).
- Paul -- Paul blatantly led his contemporaries to believe that some
of them would survive and still be "alive and left" on planet Earth and bid that
their [physical, soma] bodies would be "kept blameless" until the coming
of the Lord (1 Th. 4:17; 5:23-24). If they all died without receiving Paul's promise, and
their bodies weren’t kept but decayed in graves, then doesn't his inspiration fail,
too? Paul further told Timothy to "keep the commandment...until the appearing of our
Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Tim. 6:14). He did NOT tell Timothy to keep it until he
[Timothy] died. In all of Paul's writings including 1 Corinthians 15, he evidently had no
need to clarify that he was referring to the nearness of any other coming or end different
from that taught by Jesus in His Olivet Discourse. Paul clearly anticipated the imminent
return of Christ in his lifetime – had he not been killed – and in the lifetime
of his hearers. The plain grammatical meaning of Paul's often-used "we" (1 Th.
4:15-17), and the saturation of his epistles with nearness expectations and exhortations,
allow no other conclusion, if we're honest readers (Rm. 13:12; Ph. 4:5; Gal. 4:4; 1 Cor.
7:29, 31).
- Peter -- In his two epistles, Peter similarly admonished and
exhorted his hearers and readers to holy living and to hang in there for "a little
while" (1 Pet. 1:6; 5:10; compare with Jn. 16-19). This was to be "until the
coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time (1 Pet. 1:5) of
"these last times" (1 Pet. 1:20). Peter is referring to the same identical,
1st-century time frame as all the other New Testament writers. That's why throughout,
Peter employs the personal pronoun "you." Peter's "you" in it's
normal, face-to-face, customary context means "them," his contemporaries. It's
not used editorially, as some argue, to apply to just anyone, anytime. Here, and
elsewhere, whenever we modern-day interpreters have to stray away from the normal meaning
of words or create new definitions of familiar and natural words apart from their
customary usage, something is dreadfully wrong. It's a flawed hermeneutic to make the
personal pronouns in Peter's (et al.) letters, who would experience these eschatological
events, refer to some other group or us in the 20th Century. The Bible's time-statement
phrases of imminency and personal pronouns where addressed to a then and there, present
and alive group. They mean what they plainly say in that context. This was the most
effective and natural way for God to communicate what was soon coming upon those
1st-century people. In no stretch of the imagination does a 2,000- years-and-counting time
lapse do justice to Peter's "a little while," or justify his sense of urgency
for his target audience.
- Like a Thief -- Jesus' coming was often compared to "like a
thief" (Mt. 24:43; 1 Th. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 3:3; 16:15). The reason for the thief
comparison was that no one could know the precise time [day or hour]. But Jesus' followers
were NOT to be the ones caught off guard (1 Th. 5:4). His disciples could watch and
see "the day" approaching by discerning the signs versus those who
"slept" and did not discern the signs (Heb. 10:25; 1 Th. 5:5-6). Moreover, Paul
wrote and admonished 1st-century believers that that day should not overtake
"them" [not some future generation] as a thief (1 Th. 5:4). A second reason for
this comparison is, one doesn't concern one's self about a thief coming in a distant
future, only with a thief coming in one's lifetime – which the Bible states is 70-80
years (Ps. 90:10). A 2,000-year delay violates both the imagery, sense of urgency and
contemporary significance of this descriptive phrase.
Clearly, the in-their-lifetime imminency for the occurrence of the
coming again of Jesus Christ was the central motif of New Testament teaching and the
uniform expectation of the early Church. Just how many times, in how many ways, and using
how many inspired words and phrases must the New Testament express this 1st-century
imminency before we bow our knee in submission and cease persisting in our preconceived,
postponement notions? This language of nearness is very significant and plainly forbids
the passing of a protracted period of time. Then were the NT writers grossly mistaken?
Falsely led? Deceived? Disappointed? Or, did the Holy Spirit fail to do His job? All such
options pose an intolerable dilemma. Without question, the Holy Spirit's guidance is one
of the strongest arguments and demanding evidences that the 1st-century expectations of
the early Church were correct and fulfilled. But, there's more.
Evidence #3 -- The Long Biblical Precedence
Jesus specified exactly HOW He would be revealed or come again. Several
times He said He would "come on the clouds." What does that mean? If you were a
1st-century Jew raised in the synagogue, you would have known exactly what it meant. Why?
Because a long and well-established biblical precedence existed [and still exists] for
cloud-coming phraseology. To appreciate this Jewish perspective, we must put on the mind
of a 1st-century Jew and think like they thought. The Jews of Jesus' day would have viewed
these words and their fulfillment from the background of their own history and the Old
Testament Scriptures. If we only look at these things through 20th-century eyes,
we’ll be doomed to what has become traditional confusion.
Christ's "coming on the clouds" is a metaphoric phrase
borrowed from Old Testament portrayals of God descending from heaven and coming in power
and glory to execute judgment on ancient wicked nations and cities, and in deliverance of
His people. In all of God's historic comings in judgment He acted through the means of
armies or nature to bring destruction upon His enemies. These divine comings in judgment
were direct acts of God and largely described in figurative language. They brought
historical calamity and/or a fall upon a nation or a peoples who had come against
God’s chosen people. We can read about several of God's many comings in judgment,
often termed "the day of the Lord," in:
- The deliverance from Egypt (Ex. 3-14)
- The destruction of Judah by Assyria (Amos 3, 5, 8)
- The destruction and captivity of Israel by Babylon (Zeph. 1; Jer. 2-25)
- The destruction of Egypt by Babylon (Eze. 30-32)
- The destruction of Babylon by Medo-Persia (Is. 13)
- The judgment upon Edom by Arab tribes (Is. 34; Mal. 1:2-5; Obad.)
The Jews of Jesus’ day studied the use of "cloud"
phraseology in their synagogues and were well familiar with its application to the above
historic fulfillments.(3) Its similes and figurative language portrayed
God’s divine intervention, presence, power and wrath, and, most often, His use of
human armies as His means of judgment – (see Isaiah 19:1; Jer. 4:13; Eze. 30:3, 18;
Psalm 18:9- 12; 68:4; 104:3-4; 2 Samuel 22:10-12; Nahum 1:3; Zeph. 1:14-15). With this
same cloud-coming imagery [specifically, "coming on the clouds"], the Son of man
was prophesied by Daniel to come (Dn. 7:13). And, Jesus derived His speech about His
"coming on the clouds" at the end of the age in His Olivet Discourse directly
from Daniel. Thus, it was a technical way to speak of Christ also coming in judgment,
strength and power of war, in exactly the same way as the Father (Mic.1:3). It’s
against this background from which Jesus' disciples would have understood what He was
talking about in His Olivet Discourse (Mt. 24:30). It's how the high priest would have
interpreted Jesus' warning, too (Mt. 26:64). And, let’s note that Jesus issued no
disclaimers or changes of meaning in citing this type of coming. Neither should we.
One other very important factor we also should note is, in all these
real, legitimate and biblical comings of God in the Old Testament, God was NEVER
PHYSICALLY VISIBLE! Yet, in every instance, human "eyes" could readily
"see" or be aware of His Presence and decisive, personal intervention in these
events of history. Obviously, this Jewish perspective is quite different from the way we
moderns have been conditioned [or have assumed] to think of Christ's "coming on the
clouds." But each and every biblical instance of a cloud- type of coming is a
legitimate and real coming of God! And, Jesus employed this same "cloud"
language in a consistent fashion in His prophecies. If we don't know or appreciate our
biblical history, as well as this precedent typology, we'll be hopelessly lost on this
core element of our faith and miss its fulfillment in its immediate historical context
– as so many have done.
"Behold he [Christ] cometh with the clouds"
-- Revelation 1:7
Evidence #4 -- Fits Pattern of Other
Apocalyptic Language
Jesus and the writers of the New Testament also employed the other
apocalyptic language used by the Old Testament prophets to describe these many comings of
"the day of the Lord" [i.e. "collapsing universe," – sun and moon
darkened, fire, stars falling, sky rolling up, heavens rotting away, earth-moving, shaking
etc.].
But when we look at the Old Testament history of fulfillment of this
cosmic catastrophic language, we do not find these things literally or visibly happening.
Instead, we find this cosmic terminology figuratively depicting the impending judgment,
the utter devastation and complete eclipse of powerful political oppressors and sinful
nations who oppose God and His people (Is. 13, 24, 34; Micah 1; Zeph. 1; Ob.; Joel 1-2;
Eze. 7-10; 2 Sam. 22). It sounds like the "end-of-the-world," but none of these
acts of God were universe-destroying or time-ending events. The use of this apocalyptic
language obviously transcended its literalism. It is used to describe real events caused
by the direct intervention of God which cannot be fully comprehended in human language.
Only understood in this way, could the Thessalonians, for example, ever
have been confused that that "the day of the Lord" had already come (2 Th.
2:1-2). Had they been taught the 20th-century concept you and I [probably] have been
taught – i.e. end-of-the-world, cosmic cataclysm, universally visible stuff –
there would have been no way anyone could have confused them that that Day had already
happened. Moreover, Paul, in correcting their error, did not correct their understanding
of the nature of that event. Rather, he built on the knowledge and understanding of his
hearers and only corrected the time issue (also see 1 Th. 5:1-4). Therefore, their concept
of "the day of the Lord" [i.e. the invisibility of the coming of the Lord] must
have been the right one. There is no other plausible answer. It’s consistent with the
long historical precedent and usage of this apocalyptic language by the prophets. And,
neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer gave any hint that their use of this same
language should be interpreted any differently. Therefore, no biblical grounds for an
assumption otherwise is justified.
The literalness this presenter recommends for understanding the meaning
of God's time statements, however, can not be used in the interpretation of the nature
of fulfillment when symbolic biblical language with a long biblical precedent is employed.
Jesus was always correcting the physical literalism of how various people interpreted His
teachings. For example: "the temple of His body," "born again,"
"a well of water springing up to eternal life," "cutting off hands and
poking out eyes" just to mention a few. Instead, we would be wise to think like
1st-century, Jewish believers. They were much more Old Testament, apocalyptic-oriented
than we. And, they knew that behind every descriptive symbol, image or figure of speech
was a literal reality. Therefore, whenever the literal reality of a "day of the
Lord" came, they knew it would be unmistakably evident and theophanic in nature, as
it had been many times before. And, so it was, again.
Evidence #5 -- In the Same Way, the Immediate
Historical Setting
Using the same figures of speech and apocalyptic language, and in
keeping with the long biblical precedent of a coming of "the day of the Lord,"
we can scripturally and historically document how Jesus' coming again was accomplished
– in exactly the same way.
First, history records, quite literally, that Jerusalem and the
Temple were destroyed in 70 A.D. "Not one stone" [was] "left upon
another," just as Jesus had said (Mt. 24:2). Jesus also had conjoined His coming with
this historical event (Mt. 24:1-34). The force of His linkage cannot be overstated. And,
contrary to a highly questionable and problematic hermeneutic of dividing up Jesus' Olivet
Discourse [part to 70 A.D. and part yet-future] as is employed by some postponement
traditionalists, we'd be well advised to heed the unity of Matthew 24, and apply what
Christ said about the unity of marriage, that what God [Christ] has joined together, let
not man put asunder, divide or separate (Mt. 19:6). No honest interpreter, unimpeded by
tradition, has the freedom to weave in and out of time contexts at will, including this
one.
Secondly, the prophet Ezekiel said that in the latter days God
would come up against Israel "as a cloud to cover the land" (Eze. 38:16). New
Testament writers confirmed they were then living in those "last days" (Heb.
1:2; Acts 2:17; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Ti. 3:1; Jas. 5:3; 2 Pet. 3:3; Jude 18; 1 Jn. 2:18). At that
time, Isaiah had prophesied that the Messiah would come robed "with the garments of
vengeance for clothing" (Is. 59:17f; also see Rm. 12:19), and He would proclaim not
only salvation but, "the day of vengeance of our God" (Is. 61:2). Thus, Jesus'
statement in Luke's Olivet Discourse contains this very wording, "When you [them] see
Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near...flee... For
these be the days of vengeance [time of punishment] in which all things that are written
must be fulfilled" (Lk. 21:20-22). 66-70 A.D. proved to be that immediate historical
setting and explicit framework for these happenings.
Thirdly, Isaiah further foretold that at the time when Israel
would fill up the measure of her sin, she would be destroyed (Is. 65:6-15) by the Lord Who
would come with fire and judgment (Is. 66:15f). Thus, 70 A.D. precisely pinpointed when
everything Jesus promised, and Ezekiel and Isaiah [Daniel, too] either did or didn't come
to pass. If they were wrong, they weren't inspired. Again, there is no valid way to escape
it. As this historical time approached, James said, "The Judge is standing at the
door." And, "The coming of the Lord is at hand" (Js. 5:9,8). How long in
our traditional view are we going to leave Judge Jesus standing at the door? Paul reminded
his readers, "the time is short" (1 Cor. 7:29). How long is short, anyway? Peter
in perfect, 1st-century harmony proclaimed, "The end of all things is at hand"
(1 Pet. 4:7), and warned, "For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house
of God" (1 Pet. 4:17). Urgency permeates Peter's sense of expectation. He's emphatic,
"THE TIME HAS COME"! John wrote in his day: "IT IS THE LAST HOUR!" (1
Jn. 2:18b). How much more clear can statements be? How many "last hours" can
there be? How many more emphatic declarations are required before we are willing to bring
our postponement biases and delay-gap concepts into line with inspired imminency?
It's all too clear, if we aren't looking through a futurist veil. There
is no need to explain away any of the above scriptures. Nor should we be surprised that
God chose to send Christ in judgment to destroy Jerusalem in 70 A.D. in the same way He
had come out of heaven many times before in Old Covenant times "with myriads of holy
ones" (Deut. 33:2). Now, in New Testament times, Jesus came out of heaven to judge
the very people to whom He had spoken (Mt. 23:33-36), after He had gone back to heaven and
the time of grace upon the Jewish nation had elapsed (Mt. 27:25; 2 Th. 1:7-8; Jude 14; Rm.
11:26; Is. 59: 20-21; 27:9). It's a fact of biblical/redemptive history. All Jesus’
prophetic words and those of every New Testament writer can be plainly understood, in our
day, as true and fulfilled prophecy.
Evidence #6 -- Follows the Typology of the High Priest
on the Day of Atonement and His Appearing "a Second Time"
The fall of Jerusalem and demise of the Old
Covenant Temple system was no localized judgment, as some suggest, just as the Cross was
no localized event -- and yet fewer people knew of it than did about the destruction of
Jerusalem. Jesus' coming in judgment in 70 A.D. was also His appearing "a second time
apart from sin unto salvation" (Heb. 9:28). If it wasn't, this
"non-occurrence" creates some major problems.
Curiously, the Bible records that Jesus had come and appeared MANY TIMES
following both His resurrection and ascension. Then what did this phrase appearing "a
second time" mean? To understand this choice of terminology, we must refer to the
typology of the Jewish high priest. The high priesthood was centralmost to Israel's
existence. It was their very connection with God. Once each year on the Day of Atonement
[the 6th Jewish feast as prescribed by the Law], the high priest would perform his most
sacred duty. He'd put on his finery, make an animal sacrifice, put its blood in a bowl,
tie a rope around his leg, appear before the gathered crowd in front of the Tabernacle
[later the Temple], enter into the Holy of Holies, sprinkle the blood on the Mercy Seat of
the Ark of the Covenant, and then re-appear "a second time" to bless the
awaiting congregation. The time he was inside the Holy of Holies was a fearful time for
the assembled crowd. But his re-appearance alive, "a second time," was the
most-awaited and rejoiceful part of this whole event. It revealed that the sacrifice had
been accepted by God and Israel's sins were forgiven for another year.
Jesus Christ, as our new and superior High Priest of the New Covenant
(Heb. 7-10), followed and fulfilled this typology, perfectly (Heb. 8:5; 10:1). After Jesus
ascended to the Father, He entered the true Holy of Holies and offered up the Perfect
Sacrifice of His spilled blood. But never was atonement considered as completed with just
the slaying of the sacrifice. Neither was it finished by entering into the Holy of Holies.
In order for Jesus to fulfill the high priest typology, He also needed to fulfill the
final, inseparable and essential act of atonement – to appear "a second
time" to show that His Sacrifice had been accepted. If, however, this final step has
yet to occur, as many traditionalists tell us, then here are a few rather problematic and
inescapable consequences:
- 1st-century believers watched, waited and eagerly expected in vain (1
Pet. 1:5-9; 2:12; Heb. 9:28; 10:25; Lk. 21:28; Ph. 3:20; Gal. 5:5; Rm.13:11-13; 1 Cor.
1:7; Tit. 2:11-13).
- Their and our salvation today is still incomplete. If no final proof of
atonement has been manifested from heaven, we cannot know if Jesus' Sacrifice has been
accepted by God, yet and...
- We can't know for sure if our sins are fully forgiven,… if we are
totally reconciled to God, …or if we were to die tonight that we'd immediately go to
heaven, yet.
In other words, all we could be sure of is that we have the promise of
salvation. And, if that's all we have, then how is the New Covenant better than the Old in
this important regard, if it still doesn't supply what the Old could not provide? Then how
much salvation do we presently have? How much sin has Christ put away so far? Is there a
split redemption? Please note that any doctrine which says Jesus must yet come back and
fulfill salvation promises to Israel is saying we don't yet have redemption (1 Pet.
1:9-13; Acts 3:24; 26:6-8; Eph. 4:4). There's no way around it, if we carefully follow the
typology under the Law system of Jesus' fulfillment of the high priesthood pattern on the
Day of Atonement.
But the good news is, there was no 19-plus-centuries delay. God’s
redemptive plan was thoroughly tied to Christ’s appearing "a second time."
And, as our High Priest, He did just that as part of His atoning work in history. He has
been "revealed from heaven" (2 Th. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7; Lk. 17:30, 31). The 6th
Jewish feast of the Day of Atonement is totally fulfilled. How so? By His "coming on
the clouds." The invisible nature of that particular type of coming was why a
"sign" was needed and asked for by His disciples (Mt. 24:3, 30). Jesus had
inseparably linked and designated the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple as this sign
of His coming. And, in that event(s), He was revealed. It signaled God's acceptance of
Christ's atonement (Heb. 7:25) and that the way into the Most Holy Place was now open
(Heb. 9:8). Thus, Jesus has completed everything for our salvation. We no longer are
"eagerly waiting."
Our problems only come when we lift this salvation process out of its
"last-days"-of-the-Jewish-age context and shift it to an alleged end of a
Christian age. There is no basis for removing Christ's appearing "a second time"
from the end-time frame work in history of his "first" appearing (Heb. 1:2;
9:26). Remember, Jesus also inseparably linked, "Not one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law until all be fulfilled" or "everything is
accomplished" (Mt. 5:18). He came to do just that (Mt. 5:17). Who of us would
question that more than just a jot or tittle was ready to, was passing, and did pass away,
from the Law back in the 1st Century (Heb. 8:13; 12:26-28; 1 Cor. 7:31)? The Temple,
rituals, genealogies, etc. are all gone. And, "salvation is of the Jews" and
their age (Jn. 4:22), not of the Gentiles and an intervening Christian age.
So, why should we still be waiting for Jesus to be revealed to His
awaiting audience after almost 2,000 years have passed – again, a waiting period
longer than Israel's whole existence as a covenant nation? Come on, we're talking
inerrancy here. Whom will we believe, Jesus or our postponing, futurist brethren? For me,
I believe Jesus. How could He be any more clear? More than one jot or one tittle has
passed away and all was fulfilled and everything accomplished, just as He said. The
typology is complete. We've received the goal/end/telos of our faith, the ultimate
and consummated realization of the promise of the salvation of our souls (1 Pet. 1:9). But
there's much more involved in this coming of the Son of Man than just judgment and
salvation.
Evidence #7 -- It Also Was the Lord's
Parousia
Jesus' coming "on the clouds" in 70 A.D. was also His
personal, bodily return. How do we know? It's as simple as answering the question,
"Where is Jesus now?" Yet, it's as complex as asking, "Why we don't see Him
with our physical eyes somewhere on this earth?" And, since we don't, we deduce that
Jesus could not have returned.
The simplest way to resolve this perplexity is to realize that authentic
Christianity does not stand for an absent Christ – absent the entire length of the
Christian age. But rather, it stands for a present Christ Who is truly and totally here
with us. But at one point in history, after His ascension and during the closing period of
the Jewish age ["the last days"], He did leave. His departure was the decisive
factor for the coming of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:2-3, 18-19, 28; 16:7; 2 Cor. 5:8; Acts
2:16-17f). So, if He's now present and not off somewhere in some far distant place waiting
to come back, then sometime between His leaving and being present with us today He had to
return. Stop and think. PRESENT, ABSENT, PRESENT. There is a major inconsistency in saying
Jesus is with us today and then saying He has not returned. We can not have Jesus here
unless He has literally returned.
Make no mistake about it, 70 A.D. WAS THE LORD'S PROMISED AND PERSONAL
RETURN! He returned as and when He said! He doesn't need to return again from anywhere at
the end of the Christian age or at the demise of the material universe, as is commonly
asserted. He already has. He's back. He's here in our midst (Rev. 1:13,20). Yet, this
vastly under-recognized reality of the Lord's coming again and consummated return has been
both the bane and the chief blind spot of Christianity for over nineteen centuries.(4)
So how can we possible say He returned when no human eye physically "saw" Him do
it?
The technical word most often used in the New Testament to speak of His
coming/return is the Greek word, parousia.(5) Although it's most often
translated "coming," its primary meaning is "arrival" or
"presence." And that's the full reality of what happened – the return or
arrival of His real, literal, personal, bodily, living and abiding Presence with us, and
not anything lesser. It's Jesus in His fullness. If this didn't happen at that time and
He's present with us today, then when did His Presence return?
Jesus' "last days" return was just as much a part of His
redemptive work as His dying on the cross, being resurrected, going away, sending the Holy
Spirit and coming in judgment and completion of salvation. All of these redemptive acts
were literal, "last days" events and united in purpose – the consummation
of God's kingdom and plan of redemption. Practically speaking, our better understanding of
this genuine reality of His Presence will definitely affect the way we view the present
validity and viability of our faith.
Perhaps the reason Christ's parousia in 70 A.D. has not been
given adequate attention or appreciation is due to the long history and fascination with a
"Second Coming" mindset, and its preconceived and widely accepted tenet that His
return must be visible.(6) Thus, for many believers, a 1st-century return of
Christ is difficult, if not impossible, to fathom. But just because it was not visible
doesn't make it unreal, impersonal, non-bodily, or only symbolic, or only spiritual. Nor
does invisibility lessen its significant or importance. The Presence of Christ is a
blessed reality!
The fact that a "sign of your coming (parousia)"
was necessary should tip us off that the nature of this coming would not be a visible
appearance of Christ Himself. [Many other comings can be either visible or invisible. But
these will have to be the subject for a future paper or time.] As we've seen, that
"sign of the Son of Man in heaven" (Mt. 24:30) was the fall of Jerusalem and
destruction of the Judaic world, not a gigantic, multi-media show up in the sky. This sign
signaled many things: proof of Christ's Deity and His Messiahship; a powerful witness of
His glory and reigning from God's throne; the vindication of the claims of the Church as
the new people of God; and it pointed to the arrival or return of His Presence. It was and
still is a sign for all ages and time.
Invisibility, however, has made this particular coming of Christ hard
for many to believe. But let's recall that at Pentecost there was no physical appearance
of God in the coming of the Holy Spirit. And, remember, Jesus said regarding the nature of
the coming of His kingdom, it "does not come visibly" (Lk. 17:20b). Then, why
must He? We moderns need to wean ourselves from the idea that the Presence of Jesus must
be visible. And, we must better understand His resurrected body. "For where two or
three come together in my name, there am I with them" (Mt. 18:20), Jesus said.
Although unseen, He is truly present with them, isn't He?
Another good example of the reality of invisibility for us to consider,
is how Jesus Himself interpreted the Old Testament prophecy of the coming of Elijah (Mal.
4:5-6). This fulfillment preceded the coming of Christ. But it was not fulfilled by a
literal reappearance of the Old Testament prophet, Elijah, as the Jews were expecting.
Instead, Jesus said John the Baptist was the predicted Elijah – the invisible spirit
and power of Elijah came into and operating through John the Baptist (Lk. 1:17; Mt. 11:14;
17:10-13).
Still the most popular objection raised to the Lord's coming and return
in 70 A.D. is requiring a visible criterion. And, it's typical of the materialistic view
that plagues the termination-futuristic mindset. It's the same kind of physical thinking
and spiritual blindness that caused the religious leaders of the 1st Century to miss
Jesus. So millions around the world continue to wrestle with the so-called problem of
"non-occurrence" and the sickness of deferred hope (Pr. 13:12). In what might be
termed the ultimate demotion, Christ is reckoned to be off somewhere waiting to return,
and, consequently, not here or somehow not here fully. How unnecessary. How erroneous.
When this visibility objection is dispensed with, scripturally and historically, the whole
framework of futuristic, postponement views of eschatology falls. And, rightfully so.
No, Christ did not fail to keep His time-restricted promise to return
within the lifetime of His disciples. Nor, is the Christian age an extension of Christ's
absence. He has, indeed, returned and received us unto Himself where He is, just as He
promised – into the previously "off limits" Holy of Holies behind the veil
(Heb. 6:19,20; 9:11-12; 10:19-25, 37), and into the restored Presence of the living God
and Christ (Jn. 14:1-4,23). Both the Father and the Son are tabernacling [dwelling] among
us forever. It's the fulfillment of the 7th Jewish Feast of Booths or Tabernacles (Heb.
9:8; Rev. 21:3; Eze. 37:26-28). If Christianity is not the attainment of this [putting us
back into the Presence of God], then what is it the attainment/fulfillment of? And, really
what good is it? It's just that simple, but also that profound. The contrasting tabernacle
typology in Hebrews is explicit – man’s salvation from sin, Christ's preparing a
place [where He is and remains] for His disciples and restoration to the Presence of God
in the Holy of Holies is complete (Heb. 9:8, 9; 10:19). It's no less than the bottomline
of our faith! Understanding this covenantal consummation in its proper time frame is
crucial to understanding the meaning and fullness of Christianity today. It's part of our
rich heritage in Christ. It was the goal of redemptive history:
"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and
receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also."
Jn. 14:3 (also see Jn. 17:24)
To protract the fulfillment of this prophetic matter into a yet future
time frame is to leave a vacuum and do irreparable harm to God's redemptive plan. Christ
is not still preparing that place! Or, to maintain that if the Lord came in the fall of
Jerusalem, then we no longer have hope of the coming of Christ, couldn't be further from
the truth and the consummated reality we now are privileged to enjoy. Christ RETURNED
ONCE. His ABIDING PRESENCE is forever. But His consequential, MANY MANIFESTATIONS will
have to be the subject of a future paper or time. His returned Presence with us, however,
is absolutely fact. How we do or don't understand it will have a direct bearing on the way
we each lead our individual Christian lives.
What I'm Contending For
Are you shocked, flabbergasted or even upset that Jesus might have kept
His word and literally returned exactly as and when He said He would, and as and when
every single New Testament reference promised and believer expected? If we are sincere
about achieving a more "responsible apocalypticism" [see Appendix A], we must
take seriously the seven demanding evidences this paper has presented. And, we must not
evade, manipulate or try to rationalize away the Holy Spirit's 1st-century, disclosing
work (John 16:13) – guiding into "all truth" was not into
"non-occurrence." Likewise, we must honor the time demands, and respect and
uphold the imminency issue of Scripture.
In conclusion, and to be sure there is no misunderstanding or confusion,
here's what I'm contending for:
For... the faith "that was once for all
delivered…" (Jude 3) in the 1st Century – not one with any portion yet to
be delivered.
For... an imminent "end of all things" which was
covenantal, not cosmic, and "at hand" in that same time-context and fulfillment
(1 Pet. 4:7) – not still future.
For... the Lord's anointing, crucifixion, resurrection, and
"coming-on-the-clouds" return which were each precisely foretold, time-specified
and time-restricted by Scripture – no delays, no non-occurrences, no failures, no
unmet expectations.
(refer to presenter's E.T.S. paper 3/96 -- GOD'S TRUSTWORTHINESS: The
Literal, Exact, Chronological and Sequential Fulfillment of Daniel's Two Time Prophecies
-- No Gaps, No Gimmicks)
For... the Holy Spirit Who did NOT obscure Christ's truth, and
did NOT become the spirit of falsehood to 1st-century believers, but Who guided their
expectations correctly.
For... the consummated reality of our faith which is no longer
our hope but our heritage.
In other words, I'm contending for the reformation and
restoration of John 16:13! Dare we make any less of it?
Presenter's Postscript
"In every generation except one, the Church has wrongly proclaimed
the imminency of our Lord's return. No more!"
John Noē
The Bible was meant to be understood in its clear meaning. But the
history of most eschatological writings and teachings throughout the Church age has tried,
in essence, to explain away why Spirit-guided and expected eschatological events didn't
happen and consummatory realities weren't fulfilled. We must ask, who has made the error?
Whose view of the future was/is mistaken? And, who should know better, Jesus? Inspired NT
writers? Or, we postponement traditionalists of today? I prefer to abide by the opening
words of this song:
"Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, Just to take Him at His
word..."
Dare we undermine the plain meaning of Jesus' own words, discredit the
spirit-led expectations of His disciples or deny the very clearly and emphatically defined
time parameters? Dare we impugn the genuineness of biblical imminency, or conflict with
the unity, harmony and consistency that 1st-century fulfillment offers? Perhaps, we'd be
well-advised to follow the mantra of the literalists, "When the plain meaning makes
sense, seek no other sense." If only we would do this, we wouldn't need to devise
strained exegetical schemes in order to resolve what appears to be a chronological
difficulty within the context of our various postponement positions (Pre-mil, Post-mil,
A-mil, Historicism).
This is why I'm proposing eschatological reform [see Appendix A]. A good
starting point would be the time and manner of Christ's return. This was clearly spelled
out. And, He's now present in us and with us in a manner He was never present before,
isn't He? This is the crux issue. Miss it, even slightly, and we're bound to be way off on
other things, as well. But if you think that the Lord's return is still too hard to
believe, let me remind you what should be equally if not more difficult to believe –
that our 1st-century ancestors in the faith were misled by the Holy Spirit or
misunderstood the Spirit's disclosing work.
To the contrary, the Lord's timely return is a most authenticating part
of the beauty of our finished faith. And, sure, this realization will be devastating to
the traditional concept of postponement and delay, but that should not deter us. We must
face up to it, seriously and sincerely. There was no "delay" and there's no
justification for one. Obviously, a thorough reassessment of other eschatological issues
is now necessitated. And, rightfully so. We are called to "Test everything. Hold on
to the good" (1 Th. 5:21; also see Ti. 3:16), to speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet.
4:11) and not add or take away from God's revealed truth (1 Cor. 4:6; Rev. 22:18, 19).
Some, no doubt, who loudly, vigorously and rightly proclaim the
necessity of Bible authority, will find this call for testing to be highly emotional and
maybe unacceptable. Why? Because for them, when the evidence of this paper is placed
alongside long-standing tradition, the latter wins. Tradition, while mostly good, can
become a god, a bondage and an agenda which demands blind compliance. In those cases,
tradition's power is greater than revealed truth from Scripture, and makes "the word
of God of no effect" (Mr. 7:13). In their reluctance, many of these saints of God may
hope that what is being said in this paper will just go away, and by ignoring it, nobody
will take it seriously. But one's commitment as a sincere believer must always be to
Christ, not to tradition. And, when the evidence opposing part of our tradition is so
overwhelming, so demanding, so fulfilled-to-the-letter and so documented in history,
efforts to censor its hearing must not succeed.
Finally, the intent of this paper is not to hurt or to destroy, but to
effect change where change is needed and initiate reform where reform is still needed. If,
however, I am wrong on any aspect of what I've said, I desire correction. I sincerely
beseech you to talk openly and lovingly with me. Your comments and guidance will be
gratefully received and thoughtfully considered. But if what I've said is the truth of
Scripture and the reality of history, I seek the reformation and restoration of John
16:13, the reformation of the Church's divisive system of eschatology and the restoration
of authentic biblical faith [See Appendix A].
Will you join me?
FOOTNOTES
- Some interpreters want to make this fulfillment at Pentecost. But Jesus
had just gone away and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a separately prophesied event
sent in His absence. Others claim it was fulfilled at the transfiguration (Mt. 17:1-3).
While the transfiguration was a temporary and partial glimpse of Jesus’ Divine Glory
granted to Peter, James and John the brother of James, it could not be the fulfillment of
this verse. How would judgment and Jesus "reward every man" have taken place?
And, where were "His angels" at either of those events as stated in the previous
verse (Mt. 16:27)? Besides, all NT writers were looking for a yet-future but imminent
coming befitting this description, as we'll see shortly. The fulfillment of this verse
does not fit either of these events.
- This is a quote from Psalm 90. It is describing the character and nature
of God – His timelessness, everlastingness, changelessness, etc. It’s not an
encoding time formula, nor is it addressing how God thinks of time, as many have
mistakenly taken this to mean.
- Also frequently mentioned throughout the Bible, God dwelt or was present
in a physical and visible cloud. This is another issue which will not be addressed in this
paper, because it’s an entirely different matter than what we are exploring. Here we
are interested in how cloud phraseology is used in a symbolic manner and purpose, namely
that of swiftness and power of literal judgment in both prophetic and apocalyptic
eschatology.
- Some postulate that He returned somehow in the sending of the Holy Spirit
at Pentecost. But this is not scripturally possible. Not only was the outpouring of the
Spirit a separate and distinctly-prophesied event in the Old Testament, but it also was
prior to many New Testament texts still anticipating Christ's coming again/return as
future.
- Mt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Th. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Th.
2:1, 8, 9; Jas. 5:7, 8; 2 Pet. 1:16; 3:4, 12; 1 Jn. 2:28 – erchomai is sometimes
used: Mt. 24:30, 48; 26:64; Mr. 13:26; 14:62; Lk. 21:27. This may indicated shared aspects
of that type of coming with other types.
- It was not until 1560 in the First Scottish Confession of Faith that an
explicit declaration of a visible return is made in any of the historic creeds of the
Church.
Many interpreters generally cite Jesus’ comparison of His coming to "as the
lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west" (Mt. 24:27), as proof of
visibility. This, however, does not necessarily prove visibility or being "seen"
everywhere over the whole world. Several aspects of this commonly assumed position require
a more careful analysis:
- Lightning is associated with a localized whether system and is only seen
in a specific locale.
- Lightning that flashes from "east to west" is the intra-cloud
variety, not cloud-to-ground type of which we normally think. 90% of intra-cloud lightning
is never seen or never directly seen. It’s usually veiled and/or muted by clouds.
- This lightning is, therefore, limited in visibility. Its use by Jesus
does not support a limitless or universality of visibility, whatsoever.
- Perhaps by this type of lightning, Jesus meant to symbolically illustrate
the power and suddenness of His coming upon a particular people, in a specific locale; Or,
the darkness of judgment thunderclouds passing over Israel; Or, that His Presence would
only be indirectly "seen" or demonstrated by attending circumstances and results
[sign] of the judgment that fell.
- We should understand that this imagery of lightning is a common theme and
manifestation of God in power and judgment and used throughout the Scripture (see Nahum
1:3-6, for example).
APPENDIX A
If we are truly sincere in our appeals for a more "responsible
apocalypticism," the challenge we now face is one of reform. It will require a new
way of thinking, a new perspective and a paradigm shift away from the structure of
traditional eschatological positions. We must have the courage to go where it leads us,
even into another Reformation. In the words of John Calvin, the 16th-century reformer:
"The Church is reformed and always reforming."
We moderns have not reached the point where reform is no longer needed
in the Church. Eschatology needs to be the next area of radical reformation. It is ripe,
and that time is now. But what reform will produce a "responsible
apocalypticism" and how do we achieve it? Let me propose a four-step, reformational
process for making headway:
STEP #1--Acknowledging the four false assumptions upon
which the Church's present, confusing, conflicting and divisive system of eschatology is
defined and built.
(See E.T.S. paper presented 11/95.)
STEP #2 --Better understanding the literal, exact,
chronological, sequential and total fulfillment [no gaps, no gimmicks] of Daniel's two
divine time prophecies – Daniel's 70 Weeks and "time of the end" [not the
end of time]. "The end of all things" was indeed literally "at hand"
there and then, in that 1st Century (1 Pet. 4:7).
(See E.T.S. paper presented 3/96.)
STEP #3 --Realizing that the source of most end-times'
confusion and error is in our failure to recognize the beauty and full significance of the
historical events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple in 70
A.D. In so failing, we've exchanged the heritage of the faith for a hope.
STEP #4 --Replacing the present system of eschatology with
a solution of synthesis – keeping the strengths of the four major interpretive
schools and dumping their weaknesses. This I might call the biblical reality of
"established eschatology."
Copyright © 1996 by John Noē
Home
Contact Information
Prophecy Reformation Institute
John Noē
5236 E 72nd St.
Indianapolis, IN 46250
Phone: (317) 842-3411
Fax: (317) 842-7882
