Introduction
As we get ready to enter
the next millennium, the preachers of doom-and-gloom are daily telling us,
through the medium of television, radio, the Internet, street preaching and
whatever other means are available to them, that we should "REPENT! THE END
IS NEAR! JESUS IS COMING!" Nothing, it seems, will protect us from "the
wrath of the Lamb" (Rev. 6:16). Be ready, they say, for "at the name of
Jesus every knee shall bow... yada, yada, yada...", when he finally makes
his triumphant return. The old expression "slower than the second coming"
will never again be used to taunt believers, because "True Christians"(tm)
everywhere will finally be vindicated. Right.
Should that worry us? Should we panic? Well, you can
worry, even panic if you wish, but it will all be for naught. Christians
have been waiting for the second coming for nearly 2,000 years, and what
have we seen of this so-called "terrifying event?" We've seen the promise of
his return re-iterated in every generation for the past 20 centuries -
that's 50 generations, folks! - with not a sign of its being accomplished,
not a single one!
We've heard Christians re-word, re-phrase, re-explain,
re-interpret and re-hash, ad nauseam, the passages in the New Testament that
speak of "His glorious return," but what have we seen? Zip, zilch, nada,
nothing! And this is what we will keep seeing. We will keep hearing that
same tired ol' song, as long as there are impressionable people around who
will believe it.
The gospel of Matthew, as well as other NT writers, tells
us that Jesus was to return in one generation of his leaving this world. Has
he done that? No! When Jesus didn't return in the first century, his
followers began to formulate all kinds of excuses as to why he hadn't.
Passages were re-examined and re-interpreted in order to save their belief,
and it's has been going on ever since. Let's look at the passages in which
Jesus promised to return.
The actual promise
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This
generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mark 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not
pass, till all these things be done. 31 Heaven and earth shall pass
away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luke 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass
away, till all be fulfilled. 33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but
my words shall not pass away.
Matthew 24 is often considered the most important of the
three passages. The length detail of this account, often called the "Olivet
Discourse," gives us a better starting point than the other two accounts of
Mark and Luke, which are more brief than Matthew's. The author of the gospel
of John doesn't give us any detail of the Olivet discourse, in fact he never
speaks of it.
First, let's look at the context of this discourse. In
the previous chapter, Jesus upbraids the Pharisees for their many "sins"
against Yahweh and his "chosen people". He pronounces seven woes against
them, one of which is particularly interesting to us.
Matthew 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto
you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill
and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and
persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the
earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son
of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily
I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
(Emphasis mine)
Notice the expression that is used: "all these things
shall come upon this generation." Had I been one of the Pharisees
hearing this, I would have immediately thought that he meant those of my
generation. Wouldn't you? And why shouldn't you think that? In this context
that's the only meaning it can have.
Now, the context of the Olivet discourse actually starts
in the 23rd chapter. The reason will become evident very soon.
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou
that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee,
how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, yoe would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall
say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Notice the language used by Jesus. He personifies
Jerusalem, meaning to address its leaders, because they are the subjects of
this upbraiding, telling Jerusalem [its leaders] that it killed the prophets
(Cf. vs. 29-33) as their fathers had done. They are evidently the subjects
of this tirade, as this is made clear form the previous verses. Since they
are the subjects, then Jesus' words concerning "this generation" (v. 36) has
to apply to them and not some nebulous future generation dreamed up by
Dispensationalists. As well, the use of generation is clear: It means the
people living in his time frame. It does not mean "race" as
Dispensationalists claim. The word is never used in this fashion in the NT.
One of the most important things Jesus says when
addressing them is to say: "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."
This would surely have meant that their house, the temple he had just
visited, would be destroyed. How do I know this? Read verses 1-3 of Matthew
24.
Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed
from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him
the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say
unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that
shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him
privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall
be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Emphasis mine)
The context is very clear that the temple, which they had
just left, was the introductory subject of the Olivet Discourse. That the
temple meant, in this context, the one standing at that time, is
evident from the context we've just examined. Clearly then the setting for
this long discourse is the temple, in Jerusalem, at that time. There
can be no other temple spoken of in this context. Some Christians are very
fond of reminding Sceptics that the Bible should never be interpreted out of
context, a fact with which I am in full agreement. Unfortunately, some
Christians are the worst offenders when it comes to out-of-context
interpretations, as we shall see.
Notice the reactions of Jesus' disciples: when Jesus
leaves the temple and goes to the Mount of Olives, the disciples following
him are talking about the temple and how beautiful it is. Four of them,
Peter, James, John and Andrew, come to him privately ( Cf. Mrk. 13:3) and
ask him two questions, the second being in two parts, although some argue
that there are three questions.
When shall these things be?
what shall be the sign of your coming?
and [when shall] the end of the world [come]?
First, they are curious as to when this will all happen.
Remember that Jesus had just told them that not one stone would be left
standing on another, meaning a complete destruction of the temple. Next,
notice carefully how they associate his coming with the destruction
of the temple, and finally, how that, to them, this meant the end of the
world. If it didn't, they wouldn't have asked about the end of the world.
This is very important because this means that they believed that Jesus
himself would return, signaling the end of the world, when that temple,
the one standing at that time, in the first century, was to be
destroyed.
Perhaps you're wondering why I keep emphasizing the
temple and how it is the temple standing in their day? The first century
temple of Jerusalem was destroyed, circa 70 CE, by the Roman armies,
supposedly accomplishing Jesus' prediction of its doom. The destruction of
Jerusalem happened in the first century is uncontested as far as I know. The
reason I mention and emphasize it is because the destruction of the temple
ties in with the word "generation," i.e., it ties in with Jesus'
contemporaries and so does not mean race, but those living in that time
period. The concept of race was introduced in order to justify the belief
that Jesus was referring to Jews of all generations, meaning that he could
come at any time, in any generation, and not necessarily in the first
century. This, of course, is a lot of hooey.
Since that temple was destroyed -- and that within the
generation of those who had supposedly heard the warnings given by Jesus --
we should have expected that Jesus had returned in the first century and
that the world would have ended. Has this happened? No! Therefore, Jesus
made a promise that he didn't keep. More to the point, the authors of the
three gospels put words in Jesus' mouth -- if indeed Jesus ever existed --
which were never accomplished.
No matter how much our detractors, usually Inerrantists,
object that we are badly interpreting the sayings of Jesus and pulling them
out of their context, it remains their problem to show that:
the temple spoken of was not the first century temple
that his disciples didn't understand it so
that they didn't expect his return in their
generation, and
that they didn't expect the world to end at his
return.
This is no mean task considering the evidence that points
to a first century (this generation) return, especially in light of the
other books in the NT. The synoptic gospels agree with each other that
Jesus' return was to be within the generation of his first disciples. To
state otherwise is to totally misinterpret these passages.
At this time, I would like to add that some Christians,
namely Preterists, believe that "the end of the world" isn't the end of the
physical world as we know it, but the end of the "world" as the Israelites
knew it, that is, the end of the of Old Covenant, their old way of life and
the end of their preferred status with their god, he now turning toward the
"elect" among the Gentiles, as well as the Israelite "elect". They do have
some support in the OT for this, as some of the language used for "the
world" is symbolic and could be interpreted in that way.
This generation
The expression used in Matt. 24:34, "this generation", is
from the Greek "genea aute_". Adherents to the "eschatology du jour," i.e.,
Premillennial Dispensationalists, will argue that "genea aute_" actually
means "this race", and not the common meaning, Jesus' contemporaries. This
is used in order to try and circumvent the problem of why Jesus didn't
return in "this generation", meaning the generation that heard Jesus make
his promise. The problem with this use of the word "genea", is that it is
never used in this way in any of the contexts in which it is found. Of all
the 37 occurrences of "genea", Strong's #1074, not one instance means race,
as Dispensationalists understand it.
The plain meaning, in the of Matt. 24:34, and in all the
other contexts, demands that we see the word to mean what it usually means,
that is, a person's contemporaries. This obfuscation by Fundamentalists is
but a desperate attempt at trying to cover up, yet again, another of the
myriad mistakes of the Bible. I challenge anyone that has no ax to grind, to
read the contexts of all the verses in which the word "generation" is found,
and come up with the notion that it means "race". If the translators of the
English Bibles we now have would have understood it to mean "race", one
would think that they would have translated it so. Not one Bible translation
that I know of translates "genea" with the word "race"; and I've read quite
a few of them in my eighteen years as a believer.
The funniest part of this, is that the fanatical sect of
the KJV-only bibliolators, uses this technique in order to avoid the problem
of a failed promise, while at the same time asserting that the King James
Version is the only English translation that is inspired of God and
inerrant. They don't accept the use of "generation" by the KJV translators,
who were "protected from error by Almighty God". We are told that what they
really meant was "race" and not "generation", as is commonly understood. Any
port in a storm, eh?
The common interpretation, outside of the fanatical
KJV-only camp, and other Dispensaltionalists, is that "genea" means
"generation", that is, those who were Jesus' contemporaries. All the other
Christians who admit that "genea" is so used, take a different approach to
resolving the obvious conflict brought on by the gospel writers when they
used "genea". There are so many different schemes of interpretation that it
would require a rather large volume to list them all and give a summary of
them. Suffice to say that if Jesus is reported as having said he would come
back within the lifetime of his contemporaries, then his promise failed, and
it failed miserably.
Imminence in the gospels
What do the other parts of the gospels have to say about
Jesus' coming within that generation? They have much to say and the evidence
of a failed promise is damning indeed for those who still believe this
story.
Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be
some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the
Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Mark 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily I say
unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not
taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.
Luke 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be
some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the
kingdom of God.
In Matt. 16:27-28, Jesus claims he will return before
some of his hearers taste death. Verse 27 states that he will come "in the
glory of the Father with his angels" and that "he shall reward every man
according to his works." This sound suspiciously like the declarations of
Matt 24-25, where Jesus states he will return and judge all the nations
standing before him after the angels separate "the goats" from "the
sheep" (Matt 25:31-46). Lest one should be tempted to dismiss this
interpretation in favor of a local judgment, simply verify the context of
Matt. 25, where it is stated that all nations will be before him [Jesus],
and this should dispel that wrongheaded notion.
Another common way that Christians try to avoid being
impaled on one of the horns of this dilemma, is to say that Matt. 16:27-28
was accomplished at the Transfiguration On The Mount. Look at this passage
carefully (Matt 17:1ff) and ask yourselves why there weren't any angels and
no rewarding of all men according to their works, as per Matt 16:27 and
Matt. 25:31-46.
And lastly, when Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin, he
made a prediction that sent them reeling. He said "nevertheless I say unto
you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of
power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Matt 26:64) Jesus believed,
according "Matthew", that the audience he was addressing, that generation,
would see him return in glory. No matter what kind of subterfuge one uses to
try and explain this away, the problem persists for those who still wait for
Jesus to return.
Imminence in Acts
Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come
together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time
restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Even just before he left, his disciples expected his
return within their lifetimes. Although Jesus answered their question by
saying, basically, that it was none of their business when he would come
back, he never-the-less did not deny that he wouldn't come back
within their lifetime.
Although I realize that the argument from silence proves
nothing, I believe that in this case it is an acceptable argument against an
indefinite and protracted period. His prediction of returning within one
generation, that is, in approximately 40 years, would not preclude his
saying that the times and seasons were not for them to know. They were to be
vigilant because they did not know the exact time he would return in
that generation.
In Acts 2, Peter states that Joel had predicted that in
the last days, signs and wonders would happen. Regardless of whether his
prediction was true or not -- and I don't believe for one minute that it is
-- Peter thought they were living in the last days. To hear some Christians
speak, you'd think these last days have been around for nearly 2,000 years.
So much for the plain meaning of expressions like "last days".
This expression is found five times in the Bible. In all
cases it means just what it says: The days, not centuries, that are the last
to come, meaning that Jesus' return would soon happen, was near, was at
hand. Every context that uses this expression, and others like it, applies
it to its original readers, unless the laws of hermeneutics have somehow
changed of late. While I realize that for Christian Inerrantists these rules
change whenever it's convenient; for the rest of us they don't.
Imminence in the epistles
2Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last
days perilous times shall come... 10 But thou hast fully known my
doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity,
patience... 14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast
learned and hast been assured of , knowing of whom thou hast
learned them...
In this context, Paul is warning Timothy about the kind
of men that he, Timothy, will have to deal with. If Paul had meant that the
last days weren't in his generation, why would he warn Timothy not to
have anything to do with these men if it meant that he was speaking of men
who would live in our times? It makes no sense!
Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken
unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom
also he made the worlds;
Here, the words used by the author seem very plain. The
writer says that "in these last days spoken unto US by his
Son." (Emphasis mine) The "us" in this verse, are those who were the
original recipients of this letter, as well as the author. If they weren't
in the last days, then who was? If it didn't pertain to them primarily and
particularly, then to whom, according to this context?
James 5:3 Your gold and silver is
cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you ,
and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped
treasure together for the last days.
Again, we have the same situation. There is an important
question here, as elsewhere, of audience relevance. The audience he was
addressing were those who were in the last days, who have "have heaped
treasure together for the last days." Conclusion: the readers in James'
generation were the ones who were in the last days, not us.
2 Peter 3:3 ¶ Knowing this first, that there
shall come in the last days scoffers, walhall come in the last days
scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
The key to understanding this verse lies in verse 9,
where Peter says: "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men
count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that
any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (Emphasis mine)
Notice the expression "us-ward", meaning : toward
us. Who is this "us-ward"? Those to whom the epistle was originally sent
(See chap. 1 v. 1). These were they who were in the last days. Does not a
plain reading warrant this conclusion? If not, why not?
More evidence of imminence
1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things
happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our
admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Who is the "whom" in this verse? Who else but Paul and
the first century Corinthians, to whom this letter was addressed. Paul
explicitly states that "the ends of the world" had come upon THEM,
the Corinthians, and HIM. (Cf, Matt. 24:1-3, especially v.3)
1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren,
the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives
be as though they had none;
Why is the time short? Because Paul believed that Jesus
was coming in his lifetime. Why would he believe it was in his lifetime?
Because Jesus had said that he would return within one generation of his
departure.
Philippians 4:5 Let your moderation be known
unto all men. The Lord is at hand.
When someone says the time is at hand, do they actually
mean that the time is 2,000 or more years away. Not on your life! That would
mean totally destroying the common usage of such an expression. The common
usage is meant to convey imminence. When a pregnant woman's deliverance is
"at hand", does that mean she has to wait another nine months, or perhaps
two, three, or five years? Of course not! It means that she is in labour and
that she will soon be delivered.
By-the-way, the comparison between a woman in labour and
the travail of the newly formed Christian church, waiting for its deliverer,
its messiah, is sometimes used in the NT (John 16:21). Paul also used this
comparisson when speaking of Christ being formed in the Galatians (Gal.
4:19). Coincidence? I think not!
Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of
ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another:
and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching .
Hebrews 10:37 For yet a little while,
and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry .
The writer here stresses the need for the Hebrews to
exhort one another, "so much the more" as they saw "the day approaching".
Who are "they" in this context? What relevance does this exhortation have
for them if the day they see approaching is 2,000 years away, or
more? It makes the author and his warning look ridiculous. The whole idea of
a return at such a late date, in this context, is preposterous, not to
mention downright dishonest, because it twists the true meaning of this
verse to accommodate a belief which is without foundation.
There is a sense of great urgency in these verses. Verse
37 says that he will come and he will not tarry (wait). Does that sound like
Jesus would only come 50 generations, or more, later??? This is what
would be involved if he didn't come within the generation of those his
contemporaries. By what stretch of the imagination can one transform "he
will not tarry" into what has now become 50 generations? Desperate
Christians resorting to desperate measures?
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last
time (or hour): and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come,
even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the
last time.
The Greek expression, translated "last time" in this
verse is "eschate_ ho_ra". It literally means the "last hour". Could this be
any plainer? This doesn't even need further comment. It speaks for itself.
Imminence in the Revelation
The book of Revelation is probably the book which speaks
with the most urgency concerning an imminent return of Jesus. Right from the
beginning, the author, whom some believe is the apostle John, writes that
Jesus is coming and that he is coming soon. Of all of his disciples, if John
is indeed the author of Revelation, he uses imagery that speaks of a soon
return of Jesus like no one else does. The whole book is encapsulated by
verses in the beginning and end which speak of a soon return of Jesus. The
language is so plain that anyone could understand that they meant a soon
return.
In Rev. 1:3 he states that "the time is at hand". This
sets the stage for all that he will write further on. This is repeated in v.
7 of the same chapter. From beginning to end, the Revelation is about Jesus'
return and what will happen when he does. In Rev. 22:6,10,12,20, he states
in no uncertain terms, that Jesus is to return soon, very soon. The language
is unmistakable: He means to convey the idea that Jesus will not break his
promise (Cf. 2Pet. 3), that he comes with his reward and that this will soon
take place . Why do some Christians constantly deny this? They do so because
they know that if they interpret these verses to mean what they are actually
saying, they will have to admit that Jesus never did return when he promised
he would and that the Bible was wrong. Can we expect this kind of honesty
from Christians? the answer, evident to anyone with a bit of common sense
is: no, we cannot!
What about Preterism?
There is a movement afoot, recently started by one Max
King of the Church of Christ, which states that Jesus did indeed return in
70 CE, at the destruction of Jerusalem. Moreover, Preterists insist that all
of the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled, including those of the
book of Revelation. Some prophecies, it is claimed, have an "on-going"
fulfillment. Don't believe me? just do a search using the keyword
"Preterist."
Preterists insist that futurists, i.e., Christians who
believe that Jesus is yet to come, are dishonest with the Bible. Talk about
the pot calling the kettle black! They maintain that the imminence
statements, some of which I have outlined above, are clear and that the only
possible interpretation is that Jesus did indeed return within one
generation of his departure, or else he was lying, they say. One of the
differences is that Preterists insist that his return was invisible, in the
clouds. Shades of Jehovah's Witnesses!
I will give this to Preterists: they at least recognize
the futility and dishonesty of trying to make the Bible say that Jesus meant
that his return could happen many centuries, even millennia, after he left.
However, they also have some very difficult problems to deal with, one of
which is Rev. 1:7.
Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds;
and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and
all kindreds (tribes) of the earth (land) shall wail
because of him. Even so, Amen. (Emphasis mine)
This verse is very explicit in that it states that "every
eye shall see him; all the kindreds (tribes) of the earth (land), and
even they that pieced him." Now this could be interpreted to mean that only
the tribes of Israel saw him, especially those who resided in Jerusalem and
"pierced him". However, this is not the import of this verse. this scribe
plainly states that every eye shall see Jesus returning, "and
they also which pierced him: and all the kindreds of the earth." Anyway you
look at it, someone had to have seen him! This is a huge problem for
Preterists, who even argue amongst themselves as to what exactly this means.
I know this from experience, having been a Preterist myself for some time
before I gave up believing in the Bible and its god.
There was an almost never-ending debate over this and
other subjects such as the resurrection. Preterists often cite Josephus,
their one and only eye witness to the "judgment" of Jerusalem. Josephus
mentions, in his "War of the Jews", that people in Jerusalem and the
surrounding countryside, saw visions of luminous warriors with bright
chariots and shields in the clouds. There is, of course, no independent
verification of Josephus' fantastic claims, at least not to my knowledge.
Preterists, none-the-less, insist that this is an
independent confirmation of Jesus' return in A.D. 70, the darling date of
Preterists. Did anyone ever see Jesus himself in those visions? No!
Preterists even admit that. They claim that this is not necessary, since
what the inhabitants of Jerusalem saw were the "effects" of Jesus' return,
which is to say: they saw Jerusalem being "compassed with armies" (Luke
21:20) and later destroyed, just as Jesus had supposedly predicted. However,
the verse says that they would see HIM, not just the effects of his
return. But of course, this doesn't stop Preterists from using this
interpetation, as it conveniently avoids the actual meaning of the verse and
gets them out of a dilemma... or so they think!
Read, if you will, Rev. 1:7, the way Preterists interpet
it, and see if it makes sense to you. "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and
every eye shall see the effects of his coming , and they also
which pierced him: and all kindreds (tribes) of the earth (land) shall wail
because of him. Even so, Amen." Does this make any sense to you? The
irony is that Preterists are forever accusing Dispensationalists of doing
this very thing with other verses that speak of an imminent return.
So what if John says "every eye shall see him, and
also they that pierced him and every kindred of the earth?" That
doesn't matter one bit when Preterists try to justify their discredited
teaching, concerning the "invisible" return of Jesus. One way or the other,
the plain meaning of words will be ignored in favor of the vindication of a
pet belief. How, pray tell, does one factor in "all the kindreds of the
land" in this equation? Everybody in the land of Israel should have
witnessed his return. Were they? Just read any of the Talmudic writings to
find out. Or for that matter, read Josephus and see what he says happened on
that "day". Did he see Jesus returning?
Even if -- and I'm not admitting for a minute that this
is right -- Jesus' return was invisible, as Preterists conveniently claim,
and that those of the first century only felt the "effects" of his return;
how is it that no other nations knew anything about this? They were judged
and condemned and never even had a clue it was happening??? Funny, because
in Matt 25:31, Jesus states that all nations would be before his throne of
judgment. He even addresses them and they answer back. Even if it is
admitted that this is in parabolic form, it changes nothing, for the nations
would be all too conscious of their judgment, yet nothing of this is ever
reported in the annals of antiquity.
One would think that something of this magnitude,
something so momentous as the judgment before the throne of God would draw
at least some reaction, somewhere. However, not a word is whispered
about this in the historical writings of the times. Even Josephus, the
Preterist's star witness, doesn't mention that all the kindreds of the earth
saw Jesus. Strange indeed!
One also has to wonder what happened to say, American
Indians -- North, Central and South American -- during this judgment. And
what about the Gaulois, who resided in what is now France, or those who
lived in Briton? Were they not aware of this judgment? One would think that
if God was going to ask them give an account of their lio ask them give an
account of their life on earth, they would at least have been aware of
giving that account, would they not? The whole idea of having a just God
judge all the peoples of the earth, would at least have required them to be
conscious of their judgment, wouldn't it?
This also doesn't take into account that when Yahweh
judged people in the OT, they may not have actually seen him, but according
to the Bible, they were most certainly aware of being judged. The OT
is replete with passages where Yahweh judges the Israelites and they are
certainly aware that this is the case. Preterists, however, would have us
believe that the judgment of AD 70 was conducted in the "invisible spiritual
realm", and that people were not aware of it's taking place.
The only ones who were aware of a judgment were those who
resided in Jerusalem at the time of this supposed judgment from "God". How
convenient for the Preterist! There is no precedent they can use to back up
this "judgment in the spiritual realm," it is the invention of a desperate
mind which seeks to justify a discredited belief.
Preterists constantly accuse futurists of evasion and of
dismissing the clear meaning of such passages as those I have cited above,
in favour of a soon return of Jesus. But on the other hand, Preterists
hyper-spiritualize whatever scriptures are in their way. What's that old
French proverb again? Oh yes... "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!"
Preterists, who accuse their "brethren" of being dishonest with the
Scriptures, end up doing exactly the same thing. Thinking they have found a
way to answer the critics, they get mired in their own mud. Oh what a
tangled web we weave... There is indeed nothing new under the sun.
The truth, to those who have eyes see it, is that those
who wrote about this Jesus, put words in his mouth and had him make a
promise that wasn't kept; nor will it ever be kept, because Jesus, if he
even existed, went the way of every man before him: He died! Does that
matter to Fundamentalists and Evangelicals? Not on your life! They have an
ax to grind, namely, the divine inspiration of their beloved Bible. One has
to wonder if it isn't the Bible they worship, instead of its supposed
author.
Conclusion
Has Jesus returned? (Has Elvis returned?) Will he ever
return? OF COURSE NOT! And why won't he return? BECAUSE HE'S DEAD, for
crying out loud! Get over it and move on! Either he really made those
promises and didn't keep them, which makes him a liar, or simply deluded,
or, the gospel writers took a lot of liberty with his words and made him
into something he wasn't, or Jesus never really existed and the whole thing
was made up; take your pick.
In any event, the whole thing is a fabrication from start
to finish. It is myth which has been foisted upon the "faithful" seeking
answers to the uncertainties of life. It is an escape from the fate that
awaits us all, death and decomposition. Moreover, it smacks of the same
mythology that was believed by the Greeks and Romans and all the other
superstitious peoples that came before them.
All manner of explanations have been offered to counter
the force of the expressions used in the Bible concerning an imminent return
that has failed miserably and will NEVER materialize. "Well, this could
be interpreted to mean...", or, "Perhaps what the writer was
really saying...", and so on, ad nauseam. The excuses, the twists and
turns, the fabrications, never cease. If the Bible is so damned clear, then
why can't people clearly understand it? If the Biblegod is trying to
communicate with humans in a clear and plain manner, as is often stated by
Christians, then why is there such confusion, especially among Christians?
Why are there so many different and contradictory interpretations given?
I think the reason for all these things is really quite
simple. The Bible, like most other ancient religious writings, contains a
few facts mixed in with a very generous amount of mythology. The
resurrection and return of Jesus are what I would call a very generous
amount of mythology, very generous indeed!
