WHEN DOES CHRIST RETURN?
Part 1
Part 2
WHAT ABOUT THE CREEDS?
To conclude that the return of Christ,
along with the judgment, resurrection and establishment of the Kingdom occurred
during the Great War of A.D. 66 to 73 may appear unconventional. Even in the
face of biblical time statements, a first-century “fulfillment of all things”
may be hard to accept. Some will no doubt look to the Christian creeds of the
fourth and fifth centuries that all speak of a future return of Christ. Others
may consider the writings of the apostolic fathers of the second century. These
men, by and large, looked to a future return of Christ. What is interesting,
however, is that these men anticipated its occurring in their lifetime.
Why would Christian leaders of the
second century be looking for a coming of Christ in their lifetime if indeed He
had come during the latter half of the first century? Did they not understand
the significance of the A.D. 70 events? What would have led second-century
Christians not to understand the significance of A.D. 70?
In reading the material of the late
first century and second-century writers, it becomes apparent that they had a
mixture of ideas about prophetic fulfillment. They saw that the physical temple
had been destroyed but they did not consider the full spiritual ramifications
of this event. Just like the Jews during the time of Christ, some were looking
for a physical Kingdom and, therefore, a physical presence of Christ. Since in
their view this had not happened in conjunction with the temple’s destruction,
they were anticipating something more to happen right around the corner. It is
clear they felt the destruction of the Jewish temple had set in motion the
whole chain of events, we understand as the return of Christ, resurrection,
judgment and Kingdom. It appears, also, they were looking for a physical
manifestation of these events.
Since the temple had been destroyed,
they expected these accompanying events to soon take place. When these events
didn’t take place as they thought they should, they simply kept elasticizing
the fulfillment of these events farther and farther into the future. By the
time the creeds were written, it had become a firmly entrenched doctrine that
the return of Christ was future and that entrenched doctrine continues to this
very day.
It must be remembered that there was no
canonized New Testament Scripture in the second century. There were numerous
Christian documents circulating among the churches. Many perspectives were
being shared and considered. The return of Christ was not the only issue. There
were those who still thought that aspects of the Old Covenant should be adhered
to. Others raised questions about the deity of Christ. Works and grace were
also at issue. The list goes on and on. Many of these issues got resolved by
the time of the creeds. Others did not. The works and grace issue didn’t get
resolved until the Reformation. In some areas of Christianity, this issue still
hasn’t been resolved. I submit that the matter of the timing of the return of
Christ, and all related events, also failed to get resolved at the time the
creeds were written.
What we do know is that there was a
diversity of perspectives about prophetic fulfillment after the destruction of
A.D. 70. Tertullian, writing in the second century, sees Daniel 9 as being
fulfilled in the life of Christ and the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.
The Church historian Eusebius, writing in the fourth century, writes of the
Jews suffering great calamities in direct fulfillment of Christ’s teachings in
the Olivet Discourse. Origen mentions non-fleshly perspectives as to
resurrection in writing about the apostolic fathers. Irenaeus
also makes reference to some early Christians who denied the resurrection of
the biological body. A document called the Odes of Solomon, from the late first
century, considers the resurrection of the dead as a past event.
There have been a number of Christian
writers throughout Church history that have examined the time frame for the
return of Christ. In 1878, a major work was published by James Stuart Russell,
entitled, The Parousia: A careful look at the New Testament doctrine of our
Lord’s Second Coming. Dr. Russell was a Christian pastor for 26 years in
For further perspective on the early
Church fathers and the teaching of the Creeds relative to the return of Christ,
I highly recommend Misplaced Hope, by Samuel M. Frost. Frost provides a
well-reasoned and documented investigation of early Church thinking relative to
the issues we have been discussing in this series.
EXAMINING OBJECTIONS:
As is true in a court of law, the truth
of something must be based on a preponderance of evidence. Once such
preponderance of evidence has established the truth of something, any objections
must be considered in relationship to what has already been established.
Objections to established evidence should always be evaluated according to what
has already been established and not the other way around. For example, in
medical research, if fifty clinical studies show that A leads to B, and one or
two studies appear to show that A does not lead to B, you don’t conclude that A
no longer leads to B. You further evaluate the two studies in light of the
fifty studies to determine why the two studies appear to show something
different. You carefully examine the dynamics involved.
This same methodology must be applied
to theological issues. I feel that there is a preponderance of scriptural and
historical evidence relative to the “fulfillment of all things” with the fall
of
Some people often pinpoint a single
verse, which on the surface, might appear to teach a future fulfillment.
Ignoring the overwhelming evidence of first-century time statements, they claim
their verse is “proof” that a past fulfillment paradigm is false. I will
present several examples of how scripture is used this way and then evaluate
those scriptures in relation to the evidence that has already been established.
In so doing, I hope to model a proper approach in letting the Bible interpret
itself, in dealing with isolated verses. Let’s begin by looking at Matthew 10
and 11.
The Judgment of Ancient Cities:
Matthew 10:14-15: If anyone will not
welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you
leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will
be more bearable for
Matthew 11:20-24: Then Jesus began to
denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because
they did not repent. ‘Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to
you,
Those who see a final judgment at a yet
future return of Christ will point to these scriptures as proof for such a
future return and judgment. It is argued that since the people of
Let’s look at the entire context of
these scriptures, which include Matthew 10 and 11. In Matthew 10, Christ
specifically says that the disciples would not finish going through the cities
of
Christ shows His coming is to take place
before the disciples finish the commission he gave them. This shows the
first-century time frame of that event. Christ is speaking of the judgment of
the people of these ancient cities in the same context as his return. This
return was to take place before the disciples could finish the job he gave them
to do. Scripture shows that the judgment is associated with Christ’s return.
The return, judgment and resurrection are synonymous events.
This judgment was not only upon the Jews
living at the time of the destruction but it was the day of
judgment for all who had lived and died to that point. Chapter 12 of
Daniel shows it is at the time the power of the holy people is broken that the
resurrection takes place. Both scripture and secular history show that this
occurred in the A.D. 70 destruction. A careful study of the many passages of
Daniel that tie into the Olivet Discourse provides abundant evidence for a
first-century fulfillment of end-time events. This includes the resurrection of
the dead. Daniel speaks of the righteous and the unrighteous being resurrected
with some being given everlasting life and others facing everlasting contempt.
The objector will dismiss the
resurrection as a non-occurrence in the first century because it doesn’t fit
his paradigm of physical bodies coming out of the ground. All the plain
scriptures that point to a first-century fulfillment will be ignored. Rather
than try and synchronize Christ’s statements about the judgment of these
ancient cities with the many clear statements about a first-century
fulfillment, these clear statements are ignored in favor of an established
paradigm of future fulfillment.
The Scripture does not define
resurrection as physical bodies coming out of the ground. Resurrection involves
spiritual transformation. It involves the natural body being replaced with a
spiritual body. It speaks of the natural body being the body of sin and death
and the spiritual body being the body of life and righteousness. Biological
bodies are not the issue. Scripture shows that upon physical death the spirit
goes back to God who gave it. Scripture doesn’t reveal the details of what that
means or how that relates to the afterlife.
Scripture shows that at the judgment
some were given everlasting life and others faced everlasting contempt. The
dynamics of everlasting life and everlasting contempt are not clearly defined.
What is clearly defined is the time frame when these events are to take place.
There are multiple dozens of time frame statements that point to a
first-century fulfillment. These statements all say that A leads to B. With the
few passages that suggest that A does not lead to B, we need to carefully
examine them in light of the proven A/B relationships. Either we honor the
scriptural time frame or we create our own time frame. I prefer to honor the
time frame that Scripture teaches even if all the dynamics of that time frame
are not completely enumerated.
Every Eye Shall See Him:
Let’s now look at an entirely different
objection about the first-century return of Christ. This objection is one of
the most popular and often the first to be offered. It is found in the first
chapter of Revelation.
Revelation 1:7: Look, he is coming with
the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the
peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
It is argued that every eye will see
Christ at His return. It is also argued that there is no record of every eye
seeing Christ return in A.D. 70. Therefore, the return of Christ is future.
What is ignored is the rest of the scripture, which establishes the time when
this would occur. John recorded that Christ would come in clouds. He said that
those who pierced Christ would see Him and all the peoples of the earth will
mourn because of Him. When did Christ say this would happen? Let’s return to
the Olivet Discourse.
Matthew 24:30-34: At that time the sign
of the Son of Man 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. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they
will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the
other. “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get
tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you
see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you
the truth, this generation will certainly not pass
away until all these things have happened.
It should be clear from the words of
Christ that coming on the clouds, and the nations of the earth mourning, take
place in the generation Christ is addressing. This is covered in detail earlier
in this book. Christ was literally pierced by a Roman soldier and scourged by a
contingent of soldiers. If you prefer a more figurative interpretation of this,
Christ was spiritually pierced by all those who rejected Him. Regardless of how
you view it, all those who pierced Christ lived in that generation that was to
experience the events that Christ prophesied in the Olivet Discourse. In the
Olivet Discourse, Christ identifies the time frame of Revelation 1:7. Coming in
the clouds and nations mourning, are tied to every eye seeing Him.
The objector may still object by asking
where the evidence is for every eye seeing Christ. The evidence is the
identified time frame. Christ shows the time frame when this would happen. If
we are willing to believe Christ, we must believe it happened. How it happened
is another question. As already shown in this book, a great deal of prophetic
writing uses apocalyptic language. The language of Christ coming in clouds is
used in scripture to demonstrate God’s intervention in the affairs of men.
Every eye seeing Him may simply refer to a visual recognition of Christ coming
in judgment upon
Matthew 26:62-64: Then the high priest
stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this
testimony that these men are bringing against you?” But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell
us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.” “Yes, it is as you say,” Jesus
replied. “But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man
sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.
Here again we see Christ identifying the
time of His coming. Christ is using the apocalyptic language of coming in the
clouds and expressing his power and authority by identifying with God the
Father. Christ tells those around him they will see this in their future. The
Olivet Discourse and many other scriptures place that future in the first
century. It is interesting that the Greek word translated “future” in the above
passage is aptl, which denotes a near occurrence. The
word relates to time closely connected with the present. (See Thayer’s
Greek-English Lexicon.)
The two objections that I have
identified and discussed are common objections to the position expressed in
these essays When these objections are
evaluated within the context of established evidence, they fail to stand as a
hindrance to the overall validity of a past fulfillment position. It is vitally
important that all perceived objections to the position expressed here be
examined within the larger context of the New Testament narrative and secular
history. I encourage the reader of this book to take this approach in examining
perceived objections.
IMPLICATIONS OF CHRIST’S RETURN:
You may be asking, If
the return of Christ did occur in the first century, along with the judgment,
resurrection, and establishment of the Kingdom, how does that affect me in the
here and now? How does this affect my faith?
The first-century return of Christ and
all associated events, establish the context for our Christianity. We can be
confident that upon our repentance and acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ,
our sins are forgiven and we are reconciled to God. We can be confident that we
have passed from death unto life and have eternal life abiding within us.
Because eternal life abides within us, we can be confident that upon physical
death we will continue to live in the spiritual realm for all eternity.
We can be confident that the spiritual
Kingdom is a present reality and that the Kingdom is truly in us as Christ
said. This Kingdom is defined by the New Covenant. The New Covenant is a
covenant of life. It is also a covenant of love where the law of God is
established in our hearts. Paul said in Romans 14:17 that the Kingdom is
“righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Our purpose for living is to
grow the Kingdom in ourselves and help others do the same. Growing the Kingdom
involves sharing the Gospel message with others and living the law of love in
all that we think, say and do.
Knowing that Christ has returned, and we
have been resurrected into eternal life, should give us great confidence in the
future. Knowing that the world is not facing imminent danger of extinction, we
can pro-actively become involved in helping others achieve Kingdom living. Our
focus is not on waiting for something to happen but on helping make something
happen.
Understanding that Christ has returned
becomes a determinative in how we relate to God. We no longer see God as
catastrophically intervening in the affairs of men. We instead see God
expanding His Kingdom through the activity of Christian involvement. Our prayer
to God is no longer asking that Christ return but that He facilitates his will
through us as born again followers of a returned Christ who is fully present
with us.
We can make a difference in the world if
we practice Kingdom living. Kingdom living is conducting ourselves according to
the law of love. If we fulfill our physical journey in this fashion, we will
represent the Kingdom well and be pleasing to God. Some may ask: What is the
law of love and how does it differ from the Old Covenant law?
The Ten Commandments, weekly and annual
Sabbaths, animal sacrifices and various other regulations were a codified body
of law that made up the Old Covenant system. Many of the laws contained in this
system were already extant before being codified at
Christ came to abolish this particular
system of law because it became a ministration of death resulting from people’s
inability to keep it. Christ has abolished the Old Covenant system. Therefore
the Ten Commandments, Sabbaths, animal sacrifices and all other regulations
that made up that system no longer exist as a codified body of law. Christ
abolished that system because man could not live up to its demands. Does this
mean there no longer is law that we are required to live by? Since Christ
abolished the Old Covenant system of law, does this mean that sin no longer
exists? Are we free to do anything we want? Are we assured of eternal life
regardless of our behavior as long as we accept the sacrifice of Christ?
Christ did not come to abolish law in
general. New Testament Scripture records numerous examples of how we are to
conduct ourselves toward God and man. Christ taught a very high moral code of
conduct that goes far beyond the letter of the law required under the Old
Covenant system. For example, under the Old Covenant you could not commit
adultery. Christ taught that to lust after a woman is to commit adultery in
one’s heart. The Old Covenant taught that you could not commit murder. Christ
taught that to hate your brother was akin to committing murder.
The major change that Christ facilitated
in abolishing the Old Covenant and establishing the New is that we no longer
are made righteous by keeping God’s law.
Under the New Covenant the righteousness
of Christ is applied to us so that before God we appear righteous even though
we fail to actually be righteous in our behavior. This is how we pass from
death unto life. Does this mean we don’t need to be concerned about our
behavior? Does this mean that Christ will take care of everything regardless of
how we conduct ourselves? Nothing could be further from the truth.
When we accept Christ as our Savior, we
are essentially accepting Christ as Lord of our lives and agreeing to be
responsive to His will. When we accept the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, we
enter into a covenant relationship with Christ. We enter into the New Covenant.
This places us in the Kingdom. Kingdom living involves loving our neighbor.
Loving our neighbor involves treating our neighbor in the manner that Christ
taught.
Christ taught us to do unto others as we
would have them do unto us. Christ taught us to be kind, compassionate, gentle
and willing to help even our enemies. Does this kind of behavior make us
righteous before God? No it does not. We could never behave righteously enough
to accomplish the level of righteousness that God requires for salvation. That
is where the righteousness of Christ comes in. The perfect righteousness of
Christ applied to us fulfills what God requires for salvation. By accepting the
gift of salvation that Christ offers, we essentially are saying to Christ that
we love Him and want to obey Him. Obedience to Christ involves living in a
manner reflective of the teachings of Christ as found in the scriptures.
Some Christians have looked at the New
Testament scriptures and because they find that Christ and the first century
Church kept the seventh day Sabbath, annual holy days and other regulations of
the Old Covenant system, it is believed that these laws are still to be kept
today. What must be understood is that Christ was still living under the Old
Covenant system when He appeared in the first century A.D. Christ was therefore
bound to keep the Old Covenant law. The first-century Church was in the process
of moving from the old system to the new system. The book of Hebrews claims
that the Old Covenant was in the process of passing away (Hebrews 8:13). The
Jewish converts in particular were slow to give up the requirements of the Old
Covenant. Many in the developing Christian Church kept old Covenant regulations
right up to the destruction of the temple and the city of
Outside of the expanded moral law that
Christ and the apostles taught, there is no indication in the New Testament
scriptures that the numerous other regulations of the Old Covenant system would
carry over to the New Covenant system. This would be especially true of
Sabbaths, new moons, feast days, etc. that Paul shows to be a shadow of events
involving Christ, including His return in the first century (see Galatians 4
and Colossians 2). These shadows have been fulfilled. In fact it is evident
from several documents that are dated from the late first and early second
century that the Christian Church began meeting for services on the first day
of the week from early on instead of continuing to meet on the seventh day
Sabbath. One such document is the Didache, a
non-canonical work written by a Jewish Christian, which reflects upon the early
life of the Church.
Christ taught repentance as the first
step in becoming reconciled to God. Repentance simply means to change. Change
involves our recognition that it is not by our works but through the sacrifice
of Christ that we can appear righteous before God and therefore pass from death
unto life. Change also involves our willingness to conduct ourselves according
to the law of love. If we love Christ, we will try to be obedient to His
teachings. Obedience to the law of Christ will facilitate the growth of God’s
Kingdom within us and allow us to be a vehicle for helping others to become
part of the Kingdom as well.
Our worldview should be optimistic
rather than pessimistic. Though troubles abound at the physical level, we can
facilitate small but steady change in human behavior by demonstrating the law
of love toward others. The whole focus of Christ’s moral teaching revolves
around the law of love. This law has as its foundation love toward God and love
toward man. Christ told the teacher of the law he was not far from being in the
Kingdom when he agreed with Christ that these two laws were the most important
(Mark 12:28-34).
Knowing that Christ has returned is very
exciting. The return of Christ means that death has been defeated. By being in
Christ, we can’t die. Yes, we will die physically, but that amounts to nothing
more than a transition to a different mode of being. Christ brought spiritual
salvation with Him when He returned. Spiritual salvation is synonymous with
eternal life. As Christians, we should be hopeful about the future, with a
heart to engage problems others find hopeless.
CONCLUSION:
The scriptural and historical evidence
says that Christ returned in the first century. Christ continues to be fully
present with us in spirit. Does this mean that Christ can’t appear in some
visible way sometime in our future? No, it doesn’t. Christ is God and He can
appear in any way and at any time He pleases. The Scriptures, however, do not
teach a return separate and beyond the return in the first century. There is no
scriptural reason to believe that Christ will return in our future. The
scriptural evidence all points to a first-century return. Any future return
would be outside of any scriptural evidence for such an event to occur.
The language of the New Testament is
very straightforward about the time of Christ’s return. Statements such as
“this generation shall not pass,” “the time is short,” “the time is at hand,”
“in just a very little while,” “the end of all things is near,” “must soon take
place,” “I am coming soon,” etc., are all straightforward statements that
contextually and in Greek syntax mean exactly what they convey.
If we can’t take these straightforward
statements as meaning what they say, then the Scripture, as a vehicle for
communicating God’s message to mankind, becomes subject to every interpretation
imaginable and makes any attempt to arrive at the truth of a matter virtually
impossible. Straightforward statements, as recited above, mean exactly what
they say. Short does not mean long. Near does not mean far. Soon does not mean
distant. When Christ said, “This generation shall not pass until all these
things be fulfilled” (Matthew 24:34), He did not mean a generation thousands of
years future from when this statement was made. Christ did not say “that
generation” thus indicating some future generation. He said “this generation,”
thus indicating the generation He was addressing at the time.
Use of words in their normal sense is
the key here. Time statements in Scripture are using words in their normal
sense. We therefore must understand them in their normal sense. Look up the
hundreds of times “soon,” “near,” “short,” “at hand,” etc. are used in various
contexts in the New Testament. These words mean what they say. Therefore, there
is no reason to conclude that they mean something else in passages dealing with
the return of Christ and all associated events.
Some, having recognized the strength of
the position presented in this book, have tried to get around the force of the
time statements by concluding that such statements are dual in nature. Those
that take this position believe that Christ did return in some sense in A.D.
70, but will return in the future in a final fulfillment of prophetic end-time
events. While this view may provide comfort in holding to a futuristic
perspective regarding the return of Christ, there simply is no scriptural
support for this position. The scriptures do not, in any way, show the time
statements to have duality of meaning. It just isn’t there!
I believe that the scriptural and
historical evidence speaks for itself relative to the timing of Christ’s
return. The multiple dozens of time statements in the New Testament narrative
cannot be ignored. These time statements identify when Christ would return and
when all events associated with that return would take place.
In addition to the time statements, a
careful reading of the New Testament narrative shows a continuous and
consistent focus on the return of Christ being an expected event to occur
within the lifetime of those living in the first century. This focus is
inescapable when reading the New Testament Scripture. The various letters
written to the first-century churches by Paul and other Church leaders are
especially focused on an about to occur return of Christ. If one is simply
willing to accept the fact that these letters are dealing with concerns and
expectations of first-century Christians and not twenty-first century
Christians, it should become apparent that the return of Christ must be
understood within a first-century context.