Savannah,

Is the Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ Imminent? Written by Eli Brayley:


While I was growing up, I heard it often stated by pastors, friends and teachers that Jesus could return at any time, any hour, or any day, and that we had to be "ready" if He appeared at any given moment. Of course, as a boy I assumed this was true, and I never asked any questions. However, when I began to study the Scriptures on this point, I discovered that this oft repeated claim is absolutely not true, and sadly many Christians today believe it to be true because they have not studied the Scriptures for themselves, having just accepted what they have heard asserted for so long.

Today, this idea is presented as "the New Testament Doctrine of Imminence"... but unfortunately, as strong as the name sounds, its Scriptural basis is entirely indefensible. For this reason you will not find "the New Testament Doctrine of Imminence" in any theology or commentary books prior to the 1830's; for up until the 19th century no such idea existed in the history of the Church. The belief in the imminent return of Christ is a new and widespread teaching today; its success due to its enormous media propagation and emotional appeal.

God's Word commands us to "prove all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and in the spirit of the Bereans, the deciding question is not, "How many men believe it?" but, "What saith the Scriptures?"


THREE ASSUMED SCRIPTURAL GROUNDS

There are three types of verses used to justify the belief in an "any moment" coming:

A) verses with a general expectancy of Christ's return
B) verses comparing Christ's return to that of a thief
C) verses stating the uncertainty of the date

After examining these claims more carefully, we shall see that none give credibility to the idea of imminency, but rather, on the contrary, disprove their own assumed grounds.

A. General Expectancy
It is thought that because the early Church believers were looking for the coming of the Lord (as many Scriptures exhorted them to do so), therefore they believed that Christ could come at any given moment. Verses such as Philippians 3:20, "...from whence also we look for the Savior" and 1 Corinthians 1:7, "...waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ", pretribulationists point to as supporting texts for an early Church expectation of imminency. However, this attempt to use verses of general expectancy from the days of the early Church to prove that they expected an imminent return of Christ is unwarranted: all it proves is simply that the early Christians were indeed watching and waiting for the return of their Lord! WHEN and HOW they thought He would come is not described in such general exhortations. That the Church has always been expecting and looking for Jesus' return is not in question, but the details surrounding this hope cannot be deduced in these basic exhortations, as the pretribulationists try to force.

A posttribulationist can read the same passages and agree that the early Christians were waiting for the coming of the Lord. How this is to be understood will be different, which requires looking at other Scriptures on the matter. As Samuel P. Tregelles said, a Greek scholar from the 19th century, regarding the manner of the Church's expectation: "The Church is called to "patience of hope", and not to mere excitement of speculative expectancy." The Bible is not silent on how we are to wait, but in fact gives us clear instruction as to the promise of His coming. We shall look more into this below.

B. Christ as a Thief
Several New Testament passages correlate the return of Christ to that of a thief. It was Jesus who first used the allegory in Matthew 24:43 when He said, "But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up." Paul also borrows this comparison in reference to the coming of the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3, "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." Notice that in both cases the warning is to those who are unready: that if you are caught off guard you will be plundered and destroyed. The thief comes to steal, kill and destroy.

What is most interesting is that the next verse in 1 Thessalonians 5:4 states: "But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief." For the Christian who IS watching, Jesus Christ will NOT come like a thief. "Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober." (5:6) Only upon those who are not watching will Jesus come as a thief; but to those who ARE watching He will come as the Savior! This is the lesson in both Matthew 24 and 1 Thessalonians 5. Pretribulationists have misunderstood this parable to mean that Christ will come upon everyone like a thief to 'snatch' away the Church, and that no one will be able to ascertain His coming. This is absolutely not the case.

Our Lord Jesus dedicated a whole discourse with His disciples to give us definite signs to watch for that we may know when He is coming and not be caught unawares. "So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors." (Matthew 24:33) In this way His people will be prepared and not caught off guard like the rest of the world. If we are not watching in the way which Christ prescribed, then we are in serious danger of having our house plundered. "Let us not sleep...but let us watch..." Paul wrote this to the Christians at Thessalonica but it must again be heard today. Millions of Christians are not watching! Many people think there is nothing to watch for since they believe Jesus must come like a thief upon all men without distinction... but the point of the exhortation was for us to watch that He would NOT come upon us in that way!

In Revelation 16:12-16, the apostle John sees the armies of the antichrist gathered together for the final battle of the great day of the Lord, which is at Armageddon. The setting is the very end of the seven year tribulation, on the threshold of when Christ shall immediately appear in flaming fire and great glory to be manifested before the entire world. But right in the midst of this scenario, in verse 15, we read: "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame." If pretribulationism is true, what is this statement doing here? The warning of coming as a thief is directly connected with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ at the end of the age. For those who are watching, they will 'keep their garments' and will be able to anticipate that He is right at the door... but for those who are not watching, Christ shall come upon them with the destructive character of a thief, and they will be consumed. Therefore watch!

C. The Uncertain Date
The last argument that is put forward to support imminency is the uncertainty of the date, for Christ Himself said, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32) Since no man knows the day nor the hour, the pretribulationists deduce that Christ could come at any time.

The problem with this reasoning is that it utterly ignores the fact that Jesus gave the Church clear signs that we are to watch for to anticipate His coming (He gave these signs in the very same conversation!). The date may be uncertain, but the signs are certain. One may not know the day when Christ will come, but one DOES know the signs which Christ gave in order to watch for His coming. The only way this argument would work for the pretribulationists is if Jesus had not given us any signs to watch for and had just departed with the promise of His 'uncertain day' return. Only then would their argument would work, for it is impossible to "watch" for an 'any moment' coming! But Jesus did not do that, and therefore this argument has no strength. Christ gave us signs, and many of them have already come to pass.

Consider this: the Bible likens the return of Christ to the giving birth of a child (Matthew 24:8, John 16:21, Romans 8:22, 1 Thessalonians 5:3). The general duration of a woman's pregnancy is approximately nine months, and so the mother knows roughly how long she must carry the child before it is born. Though she does not know the exact day or the hour that the baby will be born, it would be absurd for her to think that she could give birth at any given time! As the baby grows and the mother's body with it, she can watch the definite signs of progression until she knows the time is drawing incredibly close. At that point, she still does not know the exact hour the water will break, but you can be sure she will take every precaution to have things ready for when it does, because she knows the signs. Because she has been watching, she will not be unprepared when it is time to go into labor. This is a perfect picture of the return of Christ.

Not knowing the day does not mean 'any day'. We do not know the day or the hour, but we do know the signs. It would be equally absurd to say that Jesus could come back any time when the circumstances on earth are not as Christ Himself prophesied them to be. The apostle Paul also gave us clear instructions on how to discern His coming: "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?" (2 Thessalonians 2:1-5) Watching for signs was important to Paul and it was important to Jesus. Definite things must take place before the Lord can return. There is a difference between being "ready" to be whisked away on a cloud at any given moment, and being ready to face the ultimate pressures of Satan's final persecution at the end of the age. Both Jesus and the apostles gave us clear and strong warnings to ensure that we would be prepared. Have you taken them seriously?


THE NATURE OF OUR WAITING

It might be surprising to some people that these three arguments are the only defense pretribulationists can give for their fundamental belief in imminency. As said before, the "doctrine of imminency" is only as old as the 1830's and became widespread through repetitious assertion and emotional appeal. It is not a clear New Testament doctrine but must be exposed as a false teaching that draws people away from true Biblical watching. The Scripture repeatedly exhorts us to watch and to wait patiently for the coming of our Lord and Savior, Who shall at last separate out of the earth the wheat from the tares, when He shall "send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (Matthew 24:31) This is our blessed hope for which the Church for 2000 years has been looking for!

The early Church was watching for Christ's coming. The Medieval Church was watching for Christ's coming. The Church in the Reformation was watching for Christ's coming. Perhaps in our generation we shall see the parousia of our Lord? No one knows the day, but we do know the signs, and shall continue watching and waiting in the way that God prescribed.

"Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." (Revelation 22:20)

thank you, thank you for these words:

spot on with this remark:

my first paying job was an intelligence analyst, so I know how to dig deep, and dig deep I did on and about the website, "We Hold these Truths" dot org, and I can say this in absolute truth and clarity, that "We Hold" is an anti-semitic website, and Charles E. Carlson is a stone cold neo-nazi, can I be so frank.

when a website is quoted by davidduke dot com, or the author of this piece has been a speak at "National Alliance" events, that person is a neo-nazi.

when books offered for sale have such intro's as this:

GOD'S PROMISES TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL FULFILLED
BY JOSHUA

The book of Joshua contains a passage (Chapter 21, verses 43-45) which throws clear light upon the question we are investigating--the future of the Jews. The passage has already been briefly noticed; but its importance demands a more extended consideration. Its value for our present purpose lies chiefly in the fact that thereby it clearly appears that nothing now remains to be fulfilled of all that God promised the fathers of Israel He would do for their natural descendants.

Joshua, whose name signifies Saved-of-Jehovah, had by God's express command, led the children of Israel across the river Jordan and into the land which the Lord had promised their fathers to give them. Furthermore, after a personal interview with "the Captain of the host of the Lord" (who could have been none other than the Lord Jesus Himself) he led them victoriously against their enemies, subduing one after another, until, as the record declares, "he left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses" (11:15). And finally, he divided the entire land among the twelve tribes, assigning to each tribe its inheritance, and to the Levites cities in diverse parts of the land.

God was with Joshua in a very special way; and through that chosen and well prepared instrument He completed all He had pledged Himself to do for the children of Israel under His unconditional covenants with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and this is plainly and most emphatically declared in the passage we are about to examine. The confusion and misunderstanding that now exist, in regard to the present status and future prospects of "Israel after the flesh," would never have arisen had due attention been given to these facts of Scripture: first, that God's promise to the fathers of Israel concerning the land of Canaan went no farther than He would bring their descendants into that land, would give them complete possession of it, and would subdue their enemies under them; and second, that their continued possession of that promised land would depend upon their faithfulness to Him and their obedience to His commandments.

Accordingly, when the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had fulfilled to their seed, through Joshua, all He had pledged Himself to do for them, all of which He faithfully accomplished to the last detail, notwithstanding their many and great "provocations" during the forty years He suffered their manners in the wilderness, then the unconditional covenants with the fathers were fulfilled so completely that "there failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel." Therefore, they stood thenceforth, as to their relations with God, wholly upon the conditional covenant He made with them through Moses, which we have considered in a previous chapter (Deut. 29:1). The details of that substituted covenant, which is strangely ignored by Bible teachers in our day, occupy the greater part of the Book of Deuteronomy. The substance of it was, as we have already seen, that, upon the express condition that the children of Israel would diligently keep the commandments of God--those commandments being of the essence of the covenant--He would plant them firmly in that land, would establish them in permanent possession of it, and would, moreover, give them to enjoy certain specified blessings therein. But if, on the other hand, they should be disobedient, should adopt the customs of the people of the land, and should forsake Him to worship their gods, then He would bring sundry curses upon them, and eventually, for persistent rebellion and apostasy on their part, would destroy them from off the land and scatter them among all the nations of the world (Deut. 28:15-68). This is stated again and again, in the clearest and strongest terms (see Deut. 29:23-28; and 30:17, 18).

Certainly it is impossible to maintain, in the face of these plain Scriptures, and of what we are now about to bring to the reader's attention, that God had obligated Himself to give the land of Canaan to the natural seed of Abraham for an everlasting possession. Moreover, those who so teach overlook the fact that, if God had indeed obligated Himself by His covenants of promise, not only to bring the children of Israel into that good land, but also to establish them in it forever, then it would have been a breach of covenant on His part to pluck them from off the land and scatter them among all nations of the world, as He has now done. But, as to the conclusions we should reach regarding this important matter, we are not left to an inference, however plain; for we have this clear record:

"And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which He sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.

"And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that He sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man [64] of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand.

"There failed not ought of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass" (Josh. 21:43-45).

Here is a carefully worded record, manifestly designed to arrest the attention and impress itself upon the minds of the readers of God's Word; which record declares in the most emphatic terms that God had, despite all the provocation, contumacy and rebellion of that people, fulfilled completely "all" He had promised and sworn to their fathers to do them; insomuch that of all the good things He had spoken concerning the house of Israel, "there failed not ought."

But that is not all; for Joshua, when about to die, assembled all Israel, with their elders, their heads, their judges and their officers (23:2), and after rehearsing briefly what Jehovah had done for them, he earnestly exhorted them to be "Very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the law of Moses"; to shun the idolatries of the Canaanites, not even so much as to make mention of the names of their gods; but to cleave steadfastly to Jehovah their God, as they had done during the period of his leadership (vv. 6-8).

And then, with the utmost solemnity and impressiveness, he warned them that, if they should "in anywise go back, and cleave unto the remnant of those nations . . . and make marriages with them, then they were to "know for a certainty that the Lord" would no more drive out those enemies; but would make them the instruments of His judgment upon the apostate people, "until ye perish from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you" (11-13).

And he concludes with these weighty words:

"And behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth: and ye know in all your hearts and in all your souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which the Lord your God spake concerning you; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed thereof.

"Therefore, it shall come to pass that, as all good things are come upon you, which the Lord your God promised you; so shall the Lord bring upon you all evil things, until He have destroyed you from off this good land which the Lord your God hath given you. When ye have transgressed the covenant of the Lord your God, which He commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed yourselves to them; then shall the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and ye shall perish quickly from off the good land which He hath given unto you" (vv. 14-16).

It is specially to be noticed that Joshua's last message changes in character at verse 15 from an exhortation to a prophecy; and that, in the prophetic part of that message, he plainly declares that the then unborn generations of Israelites would transgress the covenant of the Lord, and that He would therefore destroy them from off the land. (That the prophecy had reference to future generations of Israelites appears from verse 31 of the next chapter, where it is recorded that "Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that He had done for Israel.")

And now the whole world has been witness for nineteen centuries that God has done just what He said He would do. And is there to be, in time to come, a reversal of this Divine decree and judgment? Impossible. We use that strong word advisedly. For to begin with, there is no hint in the Scripture we have been considering of the reversal of this decree and of a return to the old order of things; and "God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets." Furthermore, the terms in which God announced through Moses and Joshua (the founders of the nation of Israel) the destruction of that nation, exclude the possibility of its restoration. And finally, it was necessary that the old covenant and all that was connected with it should wax old and vanish away, in order that place might be found for the new and everlasting covenant, the "better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (Heb. 8:6-13). It was under that old covenant, which had merely the "shadow of good things to come"--the glorious and eternal things of God's everlasting kingdom--that the children of Israel took possession of the land of Canaan. And now, not only have the old covenant and all the shadows connected with it passed away, but they have been replaced by the eternal realities, which those shadows represented for that era of mingled light and darkness. But "the darkness is past and the true light now shineth" (1 J. 2:8); so there can be no going back again to the time of dimness and shadows.

It is of the highest importance that this truth be clearly grasped and firmly maintained, for it is of the very essence and substance of the gospel that, while there is mercy now for all men--pardon, life and eternal blessing--"through the blood of the everlasting covenant," there is no mercy and no blessing for any, whether Jews or Gentiles, under any other covenant; but judgments and curses only. There now remains no promises for any except the "better promises" of the gospel of Christ; and for those who refuse that gospel--it matters not what their ancestry--there is nought but the abiding wrath of God, nought "but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." (Heb. 10:27). It is due to the glory of God and the honor of His gospel to insist upon this.

"THE SON OF THE BONDWOMAN SHALL NOT BE HEIR"

But the Scripture does not leave the matter there. Chapter III of Galatians states the positive side of the truth, showing, and with all the clearness that could be asked, that Christ and His people are the true "Israel of God" (6:16), the seed of Abraham and heirs of the promises; but chapter IV presents the negative side of the same truth, making it evident that the natural Israel has no longer any standing before God, or any part in His future purposes. And further it is shown that the setting aside of "Israel after the flesh" is not a new revelation given to Paul, but was to be found in the O. T. records. For there is evident reproof in the words: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman" (Gal. 4:21, 22). Paul's question implies that those who construed the Scriptures in the sense that is now-a-days mis-called "literal," should have known better. And he goes on to show that these things "are an allegory," in which Hagar stands for the old covenant and her son, Ishmael, for the natural Israel; whereas Sarah represents the new covenant and Isaac the true Israel, the seed of Abraham, the heirs of the promise. And the climax of the lesson is found in the words of Sarah, which the apostle here declares to be the voice of Scripture; for, in declaring what was to be the outcome of the controversy between the natural Israel, that which "was born after the flesh," and the true Israel, that which "was born after the Spirit," and which was being persecuted by the natural Israel, he says: "Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." And he concludes with this comforting statement: "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

It is superfluous to say that these New Testament Scriptures make certain that the national restoration of Israel after the flesh is not a part of the revealed will of God, but that the reverse is true.

Philip Mauro

Amen, Neil.

I also hear you on that issue and am burdened with you.

Personally, the jury is still out on what I think concerning ethnic Israel...concerning God's promises... But, I must say that I do have questions about some of Mr. Brown's premises.