Come back with me to 1973 when Middle East tensions were overflowing and U.S. gas lines ever growing, and most high profile Christian leaders like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Hal Lindsey, assured us that we were experiencing the last days “birth pangs” which was ushering in the end of our planet. God help the pregnant mother or Sabbath traveler, for these days of God’s imminent wrathful outpouring would plunge the entire world into total chaos.
Armageddon, the Beast and the whole of Revelation were being fulfilled before our very eyes. With Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth fresh in mind, the prophetic events were lined up in harmonic convergence as the antichrist was about to be revealed and all Heaven would soon break loose.
In my daily commute down Fletcher Avenue toward USF, I’d often gaze heavenward wondering if this would be THE day… the most highly anticipated DAY since Jesus’s incarnation. Enduring life’s travails not much longer, in a very little while Jesus would descend on the clouds as He’d meet us in the air. How exciting living at a time when Jesus’ long-anticipated return would finally arrive! Two thousand years of pent-up expectations would be fulfilled at last.
Pat Terry, an early 1970’s Christian musician, put it this way in “I Can’t Wait to See Jesus” (listen below).
In His glory as he bursts from the sky
I can’t wait to be held in his arms,
and see the glimmer in his eye.
’cause I know what they mean when they sound
I can’t wait to cast off my burdens,
and feel my feet leave the ground.
and to walk those streets of gold
I can’t wait to check into my mansion,
and get my sleeping bag unrolled.
read it from the Bible again
I can’t wait to see Jesus,
’cause Jesus is coming again
Oh, Jesus is coming again.
In the early to mid AD 60s (not the 1960s), a little more than three decades post cross, the Apostles Peter, John and Paul (whom I believe authored Hebrews) made three very poignant eschatological statements (pertaining to end times/last days): “The end of all things is near” (1 Peter 4:7); “In a very little while He who is coming will come and will not delay” (Heb 10:37); and “Children it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18). So it’s clear that Jesus must be returning soon, right? After all, the end is at hand, isn’t it?
Well, not so fast. This photo was taken only 40 years ago, almost 2,000 years after Peter wrote that verse! And this strikes right at the heart of the eschatological chaos.
The timing of Jesus’ return has wreaked havoc on the Church’s credibility for far too long. Why can’t we get it right? There’s an elephant in the room of our interpretative methods that I ignored back then, and most Christians still ignore today. It’s called “audience relevance” (primacy of the original audience), and though we occasionally give lip service to it, for the most part, we gloss over it as though we are the audience to whom it was written. There is a sense of egocentricity such that we believe we are at the epicenter of God’s revealed word.
When reading Philippians, Hebrews or Jude, we often forget that we’re reading someone else’s mail i.e. letters and epistles to first century churches. Passing over the realization that these letters were written, delivered by courier and read by Christians nearly 2,000 years ago, appears to be at the root of our eschatological confusion. The fact that the New Testament didn’t arrive on our doorstep with the morning’s paper, may seem patently obvious, but it’s at the core of the most common interpretative mistakes.
Considering the “end is near” sign held by this man above, how could something have been at hand in AD 64 and also at hand in AD 1974? How could “the end of all things” be near then and still be near today? How could it have been the last hour during the reign of Nero and be our last hour during the presidency of Barack Obama? Unless we have two time continuums, it can’t! But most of us never consider this huge circus animal with the long trunk, plunked right in the middle of our interpretational reading room.
Have you ever wondered why we attempt to invent so many ways to camouflage the elephant and act as though it doesn’t exist? I’d be a rich man if I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard an excuse explaining why the NT eschatological time indicators (near, shortly, quickly, at hand etc.) had no relevance at the time they were written.
The most brilliant disappearing act (which only seems to fool Christians since atheists use it rather effectively as a blunt force tool to bludgeon the unwitting) is constructed using one lone verse from Peter’s second Epistle… which should be noted, was written a year AFTER Peter wrote, “The end of all things is near.” For decades, that fact alone had me scratching my ever-balding head.
So, on the heels of warning them of the imminent end of the Old Covenant age, Peter, we are told, abruptly reversed course and try to cover his tracks when he wrote:
This dominant end times system which relies on denying that the near term time references are relevant has become so sacrosanct, that to even question any of its underlying tenets, rises to the charge of heresy. However, to ignore the serious issues with a view that has been responsible for error after error seems rather ostrich-like. If you hadn’t considered it before, this argument that God used the same time words in completely different manners depending on their prophetic significance, is dubious at best. Does God use different weights and measures?
(Revelation 1:1,3 NASB) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon [tachos] take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,… 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near [eggus].
Is this a truly healthy way to deal with these eschatological differences? Clearly, we need to always be respectful and courteous toward one another, but to cut off dialogue at a Bible study, seems less than prudent. If we were as passionate about truth as we are of avoiding disagreement, we might not be in this mess. And few would argue with a straight face that the current eschatological landscape is not in need of a gross overhaul. The elephant hasn’t budged!
So when Jesus said, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place”, arguing that Jesus was actually referring to a far distant generation, is not any more Berean-like than censuring dialogue. Sadly, this mindset is far too typical. Being a respectful Berean is not well tolerated if one offers another point of view that holds our feet to the Scriptural fire. At this point, you may think that phrases such as “things that must shortly take place”… for “the time is near”, simply cannot mean what they appear to mean. But don’t fall for that trap. If we aren’t willing to let the Bible speak for itself without reading our presuppositions into it, how will we ever know that we have the truth?
At this point, I need to be crystal clear. Make no mistake, I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God as explained in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. And only in that context must these things be challenged. God is neither the author of confusion nor deception and His Word is not enveloped in smoke and mirrors. God doesn’t use words arbitrarily maintaining opposite meanings. If near means near in one passage, it simply cannot mean a very long time in another. This method is decidedly dishonest. And hopefully, once you reach this article’s conclusion, you will, at the very least, have a new appreciation for the uncanny accuracy of God’s prophetic Word. Above all, I want to exalt the miraculous nature of the Bible, not tear it down. So, with that as a backdrop, let’s trudge on.
In the OT, we find statements of both nearness and distance. Daniel’s “many days yet to come” is contrasted with Isaiah’s “the day of the Lord is near”. Time mattered to the OT prophets, so why do we presume that God stopped communicating clearly and in ways that can be understood? Why, if all mysteries since the foundation of the world were revealed in the person of Christ (Eph 3:9; Col 1:26), would the NT time statements be seemingly clouded in subterfuge?
Doesn’t this unnerve you even a little bit? At this point, most of us throw our hands in the air and assume that if the experts with years of education can’t come to a consensus, what hope do we have? But the truth is that paradigm, not intelligence, is the greatest obstacle to understanding Bible prophecy. Most of us have developed errant presuppositions that force us to challenge God’s ability to communicate accurately.
So once we begin to consider the fact that God may have communicated clearly and unambiguously, we can start to deconstruct the false components of our interpretational paradigm. As I mentioned earlier, quite a few year ago I chose that path deciding that it was time to question this apparent contradiction that “at hand” or “in a very little while” actually meant thousands of years.
Now that the elephant is in plain view, let’s deal head-on with the potential explanations for the NT eschatological imminence. Anyone reading through the NT even once has been bombarded with these near-term expectations. Although this list may not be exhaustive, it covers 5 major possibilities. Admittedly, explanation #3 seemed too outrageous to include, but because I just heard a pastor use it, I decided to give it a critical review. As you read through the five, choose which one best fits your explanation.
- God the Father knew Jesus’s return was thousands of year’s future, but for motivational purposes, He chose to communicate imminence. (2 Peter 3:8)
- God the Father didn’t know when Jesus would return. Matter of fact, He also didn’t know that the Jews would reject Christ and that He would therefore have to resort to a plan B, the Church. (A Dispensationalist view)
- God the Father knew the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return, but chose only to communicate the speed in which Jesus would return with no regard to the timing. (translates “tachos” in Revelation 1:1 as lightning quick speed not soon or shortly. In other words, Jesus could wait thousands of years before He acted but then when He began carrying out His last days plans, He would do it at the speed of light.
- God the Father knew the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return, but Jesus, in his humanity, was unaware of not only the day and hour but also of the millennium in which He would return. (C.S. Lewis’s conundrum)
- God the Father knew the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return, and unambiguously and accurately communicated the imminence of Christ’s return through both Jesus and the NT authors. While on earth, Jesus didn’t know the exact day or hour of His coming, but He knew the generation. (Fulfilled view)
Which one do you think is the most Biblical? As you consider these various explanations, you may immediately notice the following pitfalls found in these possibilities.
- God is not sovereign because His plans are contingent upon the actions of His free moral agents. Therefore, God is reactive not proactive. And, if God didn’t know that Jesus would be rejected due to man’s free will, why would anyone think that the Jews might reject their Messiah again and again?
- Because of Jesus’ human limitations, God was not able to communicate everything with Him clearly. This poses serious issues within the Trinity.
- Due to God’s timeless nature, He was unable to communicate accurate time-sensitive predictions with His followers. Because God is above and beyond time, His references to time are ambiguous. Again, this questions the omniscience and sovereignty of God.
- God intentionally misled His beleaguered followers because He determined that it was more important to motivate them in their times of distress than to tell them the truth. Now we’re in very deep, shark-infested waters!
- Since Jesus’ return in the minds of most is marked by the obliteration of our planet at time’s end, how could Peter’s words “the end of all things is near” possibly be true? If Jesus was prophesiying solely about the end of the space time continuum, then clearly Peter was mistaken. Again, this challenges biblical inerrancy and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Most Christians opt for explanation #1 (God knew the day and the hour was thousands of years future but chose to convey imminence) without fully considering the serious implications, some of which we’ve already explored. Sugarcoat it all we want, the truth is that if God knew Jesus’ return wasn’t going to be imminent, but He nonetheless inspired every New Testament author to write that it was imminent, this is simply a lie. We can make up pithy excuses but this is the bottom line.
Yes, I realize that this probably makes you as uncomfortable as it did me, but this reality must be confronted if we have any prayer of being intellectually honest as we rightly attempt to handling God’s Word. God is not the author of lies and/or misdirection. If even one of an eschatological system’s interpretational building blocks presumes God to be a liar, the whole edifice crumbles.
Hebrews 6:18 (NASB) so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
Titus 1:2 (NASB) in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago,Numbers 23:19 (NASB) “God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?
The atheist who put the below video together, attacks Christians and Christianity at this very point. The vast majority of believers have heard the time is irrelevant to God excuse for so long, they are oblivious to its absurdity. But we must, no matter how emotionally taxing, be prepared to answer the atheist… as well as the confused Christians for that matter.
1 Peter 3:15 (NKJV) But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
Consider this analogy to help drive the point home. Your garage just caught fire and after calling 911, the dispatcher tells you that the fire trucks are on the way and will be there shortly. Would you sing the fire department’s praises if they never arrived and your house burned to the ground? Would it make your misery any less profound to find out that those trucks were not only never dispatched, but there was never any intent to send them?
How would you have reacted to the following excuse from the fire department? “We often get busy, and in our line of work, for us a day is a thousand years and a thousand years is but a day. Time is really of no consequence to us.” Seriously, how would you respond to that excuse? Perhaps a logical reaction might be, “That’s incredibly cruel for giving us false hope. Why would you have said you’d be there soon if you had no such intention?” Is God less caring than a poorly run local fire squad?
Approx. two decades ago as this kind of eschatological confusion began weighing heavily upon my faith, I subtly started to distrust the Bible. At the onset it wasn’t all that overt, but it, in consort with some other nagging issues, became profoundly debilitating.
If this was in fact the way God treated His first-century followers whose lives were in constant peril, then I wondered about His faithfulness to me. In other words, if the ones who received the short-term promises were intentionally jilted, why should I have any confidence that God would be faithful to me and my family in the light of me never receiving such promises? I’m happy to report that I finally worked through this intense struggle, but not before undergoing a significant eschatological paradigm change that began at this very point.
Yes, I realize that means there’s no true test for a prophet since all prophets are exempt from these kinds of time restrictions, but these are harsh realities that must be conveyed…lest the scoffers continue to repeat their accusations charging Jesus and the rest of us as false prophets. So move along and be about your business to love the Lord. And remember, when God says renders a time-sensitive declaration , He may or may not do it within the time He specifies. It’s His divine prerogative!”
So how could any prophet declare a prophetic event if it can always be short-circuited by non-compliant men? What would have happened if the Medes had chosen not to comply with God’s sovereign plan and therefore never attacked the Babylonians? Wouldn’t that have made Isaiah a false prophet? I realize how ludicrous this 3rd explanation is, but I felt it was necessary to include it since people actually believe it. If you have to become an open theist to support your dispensational views, something is seriously wrong.
So, on we trudge to explanation #4, forever attempting to find yet another way to disguise the elephant: God the Father knew the exact day and hour of Jesus’ return, but Jesus, in his humanity, was unaware of not only the day and hour but also the millennium in which He would return.
If that doesn’t make the hair on the back of your neck stand up, nothing will. Yes, the implication may startle you, but it is certainly contrary to what C.S. Lewis wrote in “The World’s Last Night. “He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”
Jesus was not only not wrong, but when He was sitting at the right hand of the Father after His ascension, He knew the day and the hour of His return and He revealed to John that the contents of His vision would soon take place because the time was near. So, don’t let C.S. Lewis, your pastor or anyone else convince you that Jesus didn’t have a clue when He would return.
Could God have been any more redundantly emphatic? It seems that God was sending a very clear message that His prophesies would come to pass in the exact time they were predicted. So how is it that the accepted eschatology of our day is in such direct contradiction to these words given toEzekiel?
Our last order of business is to deal directly with the context of 2 Peter 3:8. Two things are usually missed. One has to do with considering only half the verse and the other regards the very next verse.
2 Peter 3:8-9 (NASB) But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years,and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
If we take this verse to mean that “shortly” can mean thousands of years, then we must consider the fact that in the second part of the verse it would turn Daniel’s “many days yet to come” into less than one day.
If we consider the context of Second Peter, it had been approx 34 years since Jesus’s emphatic statement that He would return in a generation. Time was running out and the scoffers were mocking the fact that, since it had been so LONG (since Jesus made that statement), it was clear (to them) that Jesus wasn’t going to ever return. The scoffers were fully aware of the stated timing of the Lord’s parousia.
So Peter was in effect saying, “Listen fellas, yes, this generation is coming to a close, but the fact is that Jesus is still right on schedule.” The Temple is still standing and my judgment upon this wicked and perverse generation is not far off. That’s why Peter followed with “The Lord is not SLOW” to fulfill His promises.” If Peter was arguing the way most have interpreted 2 Peter 3:8, he would have said, “The Lord is not FAST” to fulfill all that He promised.
Peter wasn’t hedging his bets. He was all in. He was fully convinced that the end of all things was even nearer than they were when he wrote his first epistle a year earlier. He knew that the timely vindication of the martyrs was absolutely crucial to the integrity of God’s prophetic word.
There are those who have so flippantly and ignorantly mocked people for believing that God can tell time and God did fulfill His promises like clockwork. My hope is that they will realize the implications of their scoffing. The people holding their eschatological feet to the fire are not the problem. So bent on holding on their view, they are unwittingly scoffing at the faithfulness of God. If the first-century scoffers gained traction and provoked Peter’s rebuke because it had been 34 years and Jesus was late, how should those who believe that Jesus is 1,984 years late and counting view their own unbelief? Because that’st he crux of the matter. Faith to believe that no matter how it seems because of the confusion, that God was abundantly faithful to His beleaguered first-century followers.
So how could we have possibly gone this far afield where up is down and left is right? I realize that the implications make us uncomfortable. However, shouldn’t our end game be to exalt and honor the integrity and the inspiration of God’s Word rather than to merely attempt to preserve our eschatological presuppositions?
The language is a poetical citation from Psalm 90:4, and is adduced to show that the lapse of time does not invalidate the promises of God. . . . But this is very different from saying that when the everlasting God promises something shortly, and declares that it is close at hand, He may mean that it is a thousand years in the future. Whatever He has promised indefinitely He may take a thousand years or more to fulfill; but what He affirms to be at the door let no man declare to be far away. ((Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), 406.) Originally written in 1883)
And now let’s read what J. Stuart Russell had to say:
Few passages have suffered more from misconstruction than this, which has been made to speak a language inconsistent with its obvious intention, and even incompatible with a strict regard to veracity.
There is probably an allusion here to the words of the Psalmist, in which he contrasts the brevity of human life with the eternity of the divine existence. . . . But surely it would be the height of absurdity to regard this sublime poetic image as a calculus for the divine measurement of time, or as giving us a warrant for wholly disregarding definitions of time in the predictions and promises of God.
Yet it is not unusual to quote these words as an argument or excuse for the total disregard for the element of time in the prophetic writings. Even in cases where a certain time is specified in the prediction, or where such limitations as ‘shortly,’ or ‘speedily,’ or ‘at hand’ are expressed, the passage before us is appealed to in justification of an arbitrary treatment of such notes of time, so that soon may mean late, and near may mean distant, and short may mean long, and vice versa. . . .
It is surely unnecessary to repudiate in the strongest manner such a non-natural method of interpreting the language of Scripture. It is worse than ungrammatical and unreasonable, it is immoral. It is to suggest that God has two weights and measures in His dealings with men, and that in His mode of reckoning there is an ambiguity and variableness which will make it impossible to tell ‘What manner of time the Spirit of Christ in the prophets may signify’[cf. 1 Pet. 1:11]…
The Scriptures themselves, however, give no countenance to such a method of interpretation. Faithfulness is one of the attributes most frequently ascribed to the ‘covenant-keeping God,’ and the divine faithfulness is that which the apostle in this very passage affirms. . . . The apostle does not say that when the Lord promises a thing for today He may not fulfill His promise for a thousand years: that would be slackness; that would be a breach of promise. He does not say that because God is infinite and everlasting, therefore He reckons with a different arithmetic from ours, or speaks to us in a double sense, or uses two different weights and measures in His dealings with mankind. The very reverse is the truth. . . .
It is evident that the object of the apostle in this passage is to give his readers the strongest assurance that the impending catastrophe of the last days were on the very eve of fulfillment. The veracity and faithfulness of God were the guarantees of the punctual performance of the promise. To have intimated that time was a variable quantity in the promise of God would have been to stultify and neutralize his own teaching, which was that ‘the Lord is not slack concerning His promise.’ ((J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, [1887] 1983), 321ff. Owen, “Providential Changes: An Argument for Universal Holiness,” 134–35.))
In His glory as he bursts from the sky
I can’t wait to be held in his arms,
and see the glimmer in his eye.
’cause I know what they mean when they sound
I can’t wait to cast off my burdens,
and feel my feet leave the ground.
and to walk those streets of gold
I can’t wait to check into my mansion,
and get my sleeping bag unrolled.
read it from the Bible again
I can’t wait to see Jesus,
’cause Jesus is coming again
Oh, Jesus is coming again.
1 Corinthians 13:12 (NASB) For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.
Philippians 3:21 (NASB) who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 (NASB)Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.Romans 8:18 (YLT) For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory about to be revealed in us; Did you know that there is historical precedent for all these things taking place in and around AD 66 leading up to the destruction of the Temple in the fall of AD 70?
In closing, think about this. If God was not faithful to THEM (persecuted 1st century Christians who were promised near term vindication), why do you think He will be faithful to YOU. If we so frivolously disregard the plain meanings of biblically inspired words simply to fit our eschatological preconceptions, how can we expect to look the liberal Bible critics in the eye? You may think this is about eschatology, but the fact is there’s a whole lot more at stake. This is a fight for the inspiration and integrity of Bible.For those who continue to insist that near can mean farandsooncan meanmany days in the future, I’ll leave you with this famous quote from a former president. “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’, is.“ Hold on to your eschatology if you must, but please stop using 2 Peter 3:8 to hide the elephant. He’s making quite a mess of our interpretational reading rooms and he’s severely compromising the credibility of God’s infallible Word.
p.s. If you truly want to see how the world sees us through the lens of our eschatological failings, check out the following from an atheist blog review of Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth. I don’t condone their conclusions, but I think they make some valid points that we all should consider.
If you’d like a straightforward Biblical answer to the seeming conundrum I’ve presented here, I would highly recommend Christian Hope Through Fulfilled Eschatology. Written by friend and PCA Elder, Charles Meek, this very readable and well argued eschatological masterpiece, presents a Biblical case that keeps the “time statements” intact while proving God’s real-time faithfulness. This book clearly and completely answers both the atheist as well as the premillennialist. If you are willing to consider a viable alternative to the failed system that has dominated the Church for a century, this book will provide answers to your most perplexing eschatological questions. Charles began www.faithfacts.org, one of the first apologetics websites, to defend Christianity from skeptics and to bolster the faith of those committed to Christ. In so doing, he was confronted with the eschatological issues that have plagued the church. This book arose from a time of concerted study and introspection. Charles just mentioned that he received an email from a Dallas Theological Seminary grad letting him know that he left behind Left Behind (after reading this book).