Transcending the ‘Second-Coming’ Charade

It’s a strategic mistake – IMO – to pander to the charade of popular end-time views that perpetuate false doctrines and traditions of men by employing non-scriptural terms and attached unscriptural concepts.

 

As a result, the great eschatological debate has become an entrenched stalemate.

 

Preterist Objection (from FB post): “You can call it a ‘coming,’ ‘second coming,’ ‘return,’ ‘receiving,’ ‘rapture,’ ‘or whatever other term you choose to describe the fantastic, world altering event that took place in the year A.D. 70. The point being that the specific event, which Jesus and all the OT prophets and NT writers pointed to, happened and is not future for us today. Yes?”

 

My Response: In a word, no, not if we sincerely desire to become more effective in debating, reconciling, and reforming the competing, conflicting, and divisive arena of end-time views—for these seven reasons:

 

First, I agree that all of Jesus’ end-time prophecies were fulfilled precisely circa A.D. 70, time and nature wise.

 

Secondly, in each major eschatological view, the so-called “Second Coming” and “Return” of Christ is the chief, central, and pivotal event to which all other end-time events are conjoined.

 

Thirdly, if we could get this chief event right, then the groundwork will have been laid and the debate table cleared for a major reconciliation and reform of “one of the most divisive elements in recent Church history. . . . eschatology.”

 

Fourthly, we must recognized that this so-called chief event is not only non-scriptural terminology, it is a non-event. That is, the so-called “Second Coming/Return” of Christ as defined by the three major futurist views as being a worldwide visible appearance of Jesus has never and will never happen (see John 14:18-19; Rev. 1:7 notwithstanding).

 

Fifthly, by condescending to the charade of non-scriptural terminology and limiting the comings (plural) of Jesus to only two, we are not only perpetuating a false doctrine and traditions of men, but we are also weakening our debating position and power.

 

Sixthly, it is generally admitted in debating circles, and in theological discourse, that he who defines the terms wins the debate. Hence, the dominating futurist positions have defined, used, and abused these terms and thus have created a huge artificial hurdle for which the events of A.D. 70 do not measure up—in their opinions.

 

Seventhly, both the terminology and testimony of Scripture (OT and NT) is of many comings of Jesus. This truth is a powerful strength to bring to the debating table and to break through the worn-out arguments and entrenched stalemate.

 

Therefore, if we truly desire to reform the divisive arena of eschatology (my stated purpose), we MUST become more effective by purging non-scriptural terminology and attached unscriptural events, concepts, and doctrines.

 

This resolution I have developed, systematically and extensively, in my latest book Unraveling the End: A balanced scholarly synthesis of four competing and conflicting end-time views (Amazon.com). It is based upon my doctoral dissertation. And I recommend it to your attention.

 

But what do you think?