The Time of Christ’s Return
There are three categories of time-related ideas concerning Christ’s return. One idea relates it as postponed or delayed. A second idea foresees it on the horizon in our imminent future. A third unpopular and virtually overlooked view regards it as fulfilled. Why are these widely diverse mutually exclusive views, entertained by those interested in the subject?
First, there is some truth expressed in each of the concepts. Consider, the coming of Christ is postponed. The idea of postponement or delay statements are made, not by the inspired writers. It is their detractors who advocated the concept of a delay.
The idea of delay, postponement or nonfulfillment was always voiced by those who for some reason, opposed the event. In the Olivet discourse, Jesus attributes the dialogue of delay to an evil servant. (Matthew 25:48) Correspondingly, his actions reflect his belief in that he begins to beat his fellow servants and eat and drink with the drunkards.
Later, Peter portrays “scoffers” as sneering at the return of Christ and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming?” (2 Peter 3:4) That their views centered on delay or nonfulfillment evokes the response by Peter, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise as some count slackness.”(3:9) In other words, God doesn’t make loose promises. The New Testament writers were strongly opposed to the idea of a delayed coming of Christ.
Secondly, imminence appears in all the epistles that speak of the second coming. The writers state that it is at hand, near, and coming in a little while. These statements puzzle some and cause others to hold the Bible as a book of trite expressions. Scholars and laymen alike reason that Jesus nor the apostles were very well informed since, according to them, his coming did not imminently occur.
For example, C.S. Lewis, proclaimed apologist wrote in an essay entitled, The Last Night, that Jesus was wrong to teach an imminent return, misinformed his apostles and clearly knew no more about the return of Christ than anyone else.
Albert Schweitzer in the “Quest For The Historical Jesus” saw Christianity as a “de-eschatologizing” of religion attributing it to delay and nonfulfillment based on his views that contrary to the wording of the Bible, the return of Christ was not imminent.
Others like Bertrand Russell abandon belief in the inspiration of Scripture due to problems encountered with the imminent statements concerning Jesus’ return. Many others have subjected themselves to this position.
Reversing The Problem of Time
While the above men discredited the near expectation of the second coming within the first century generation, modern day expositors such as Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jerry Jenkins, and Thomas Ice, adopt an “imminent now” view. It is believed that this addresses the problem. In other words, the Left Behind authors would have us understand that words spoken almost 2,000 years ago were time-wise, irrelevant to the original audience. Rather, such words must be understood from our present historical perspective. This means those words cannot mean near for them, but they “must” mean near for us!
Does this option help or hurt the cause? The date-setters have wearied us in contriving newer and more fanciful theories as they seek to align newspaper headlines with biblical references. These have failed over and over again.
The problem is not the language of the Bible, but the perspective of today’s would be interpreter. We are confident that the present solutions offered do not relieve us from the clear language of a near expectation of the first century fulfillment in end-time teachings.
The Words Mean What They Say
Another option is to allow the words to mean what they say. Rather than changing the time, which we have centuries to prove doesn’t work, why not explore changing our understanding of how and in what manner these words may be true?
A simple statement such as “The coming of the Lord is at hand,” literally, has drawn near, from the writers’ perspective, means they expected the Lord’s return in their time. Some object by saying the words “at hand” do not mean near. Question, if “at hand” does not mean near, or soon to occur, then what does “not at hand” mean? Would that mean just the opposite, that it was near and soon to occur? Such reduces language to meaningless babble.
Regarding Christ’s return, both statements are used. Those which say the event is at hand are: Romans 13:11, 12; Philippians 4:5; James 5:7,8; Hebrews 10:37; 1 Peter 4:7, 17, and Revelation 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10. Others unequivocally state the event would take place before some then alive would die, Matthew 16:28, and within their very own generation, Matthew 24:34.
The Problem of 2 Thessalonians 2:2
In all fairness we must address the passage which says that the Lord’s coming was not at hand (2 Thessalonians 2:2) This rendering in most texts is more accurately rendered, has not come. The reason for that is the words in the original language are different as can be noted using Strong’s Concordance or other lexical references. In the first list of passages the term used means soon. In the text before us, it is an altogether different word meaning present, i.e. already having occurred
The apparent difficulty is easily resolved once we know when the letters were written. 2 Thessalonians was written about A.D. 50, 51. The other texts mentioned were written in the early to late 60’s. Jesus placed the fulfillment of all things in 70 A.D., in connection with an event known as the destruction of Jerusalem. (Luke 21:20-22, 32)
That event was less than about 20 years removed from 2 Thessalonians, but was less than 10 years removed from the other “at hand” texts. This gives a rather interesting perspective on what the apostles really meant by the word near. They saw the event coming inside of 10 years of their writings.
However, in 2 Thessalonians, there were two events that had to precede the coming. First was the apostasy or falling away. Secondly the man of sin, had to be revealed. (2:3)That these were references well known by the first century audience is clear from Paul’s cursory reminder. They were so well known that this brief mention of them adequately addressed the problem.
In summary, the three categories of time are delay or nonfulfillment, imminence now from our timeline, or imminence then, from the timeline of the original audience and recipients. The only time that delay is attributed to the return of Christ is when uttered by skeptics and evil servants. Many prominent men have honestly concluded that Jesus was mistaken about the time of his return. Others see the option of a present day imminent return.
Is it not easier to take the words at face value, believe that they happened as and when the writers said they would. Perhaps we should look around and understand that fulfillment of those words do not mean the end of our material world or of life on the planet. After all, the Thessalonians held the concept that Jesus had come, yet they never questioned why they yet remained on earth. Could we learn a lesson here?
William Bell, Jr., is a public speaker, author and writer on Covenant Eschatology. For more information visit, http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com/articles.html. Send comments or questions to info@allthingsfulfilled.com
