Friday

Christ's Coming to Judge the World

There are at least 100 passages in the New Testament that assert that Christ is going to return to judge the world at "any moment." Atheist Bertrand Russell, in his book Why I Am Not A Christian, discredits the inspiration of the New Testament based on the alleged failed prediction of Christ and the Apostles:

I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels . . . and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at the time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." Then He says, "There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom"; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of his earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of his moral teaching.

Russell is correct when he says that much of the New Testament was based on the belief that the Kingdom and end of the age were "at hand." If Christ and the Apostles were teaching the imminent destruction of planet earth and the inauguration of the "eternal state," then they were clearly mistaken.

What atheists like Russell ignore is the great importance of the destruction of Jerusalem in the lifetime of those who were eye-witnesses of Christ by the Romans (A.D. 70) .

In question 56 of the Larger Catechism, the Westminster Divines cite Matthew 24 as proof of a coming of Christ that is still in our future. But if you read Matthew 24 beginning in chapter 23, and take seriously verses like Matthew 24:33-34:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
you're more likely to conclude that these events surrounded the judgment of Israel in A.D. 70, not a judgment which is still future.
Luke 21:20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, 22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 23 Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
All these things were fulfilled in A.D. 70. Russell the atheist was wrong. But the Westminster Catechism might also be wrong, for misleading people like Russell.

The Catechism says that Christ has yet to come "in the full manifestation of his own glory, and of his Father's, with all his holy angels," quoting Luke 9:26:
"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, of him the Son of Man will be ashamed when He comes in His own glory, and in His Father's, and of the holy
angels.
But the very next verse (27) says, "But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God." Matthew records Jesus this way:
27 For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work.
28 Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.
The Greek word in verse 27 can be translated "angels" or "messengers" (see Mark 1:2; Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:24; 7:27; 9:52; 2 Corinthians 12:7; James 2:25). The Hebrew equivalent is often translated "ambassadors." In this verse, the meaning is likely the "messengers" in the army of Titus, who brought God's fiery judgment upon those who crucified Christ. Jesus plainly says that some of those standing there would not die before this happened, and Jesus was correct.

The promise of Christ's judgment against unbelieving Israel was meant to console those Christian believers who were victims of Jewish persecution, as we see in Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians:

Second Thessalonians
1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
2 Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth;
4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:
While we can learn from this letter, as it is the Word of God, it is not directed to believers in the 21st century as it was to believers in the first century.

On occasion, the Westminster Divines overlook a subtle Greek word which can alter the chronology of a prophecy, the Greek word mello. In Q. 56, the Catechism quotes Acts 17:31, "because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." The Greek word mello could indicate that he is "about to judge," as it does in many other passages.

Food for thought, and grounds for further research. Please add your comments.

7 comments:

  1. I'm still thinking through this, but it will be a long hard study before I EVER deny this teaching in the Westminster confession...

    its like the decision to start wearing a dress to work... Its uncomfortable and people will think I'm crazy, because people who wear dresses usually are. (jk);)

    ReplyDelete
  2. By "this teaching" what do you mean? State the proposition.

    Now, add your "proof texts." Which verses not only prove your proposition, but really can't be interpreted any other way, or cumulatively make it impossible for an honest "Berean" to deny your proposition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm still working... haha. I don't know enough about Eschatology to even argue against your position, so I rest in the hands of Mother Church at the moment. I believe its a bad argument to claim that because traditional documents drawn up by historical church counsels isn't a definitive argument against hyper-preterism, but There are enough other guys better than me at theology that seem like they have the preterist argument beat. To me its like a buffett of honorable theologians giving their Eschatology interpretations, and I get to just pick one I like.

    Horrible.

    I know.

    All I'm saying is that I hold a strong hand against it for now until I'm thoroughly convinced.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Don't pick from the seminary buffet or rest in the hands of Mother Church. Be a Berean. Let Scripture be your authority. Question even the councils in light of the Bible.

    It's more work to be a Berean than to rest in church hands, but that's our duty.

    The most basic level of partial preterism is seeing Matthew 24 as a prophecy of the Fall of Jerusalem. This is partial preterism 101. Are you there yet?

    If the Mormons came to your door and told you that Matthew 24 was not just talking about AD70, but there is to be a double fulfillment of Matthew 24 when Joseph Smith comes again, how would you argue against their claim? Would you say, "I can't argue against it, so I'm just going to rest in it." Wouldn't you want some Biblical basis for their claim?

    The natural reading of Matthew 24 is preterist. Only those defending Mother Church or some other eschatological position see it as future. Then when you start tying all the other NT prophecies to Matthew 16:27-28, you realize that the creeds and confessions are wrong to ground the doctrine of the Second Coming on these 1st century verses; that only with a very strained interpretation can they be said to be talking about an event 2,000 years in the future, and not something about to happen in the lifetime of those to whom they were spoken in the 1st century.

    If your favorite theologian claims that Matthew 16:27-28 is talking about an event 2,000 years after that generation died out, wouldn't you want some Biblical basis for that claim, rather than something like, "Trust me. The Theologians' union has been saying this for 2,000 years." Does a claim become true simply because it has been repeated over and over for generations and has now become a "venerable tradition?"

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with your central point that we must rest in the hands of God through his chosen revelation (scripture) and not in hand-me-down tradition (that is ungrounded once judged by scripture).

    I am not willing at this time to accept FP while in Berean process. I err on the side of the "theologians".

    That's my subjective statement... you all can do what you want at your own risk.

    good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your statement is not "subjective," it's just objective on a secondary level.

    I'm not saying you should blindly accept FP while you're still in the process of studying the Bible. If you haven't yet completed your study of the Bible, the safe thing to do is rely on the teaching of theologians who have (Proverbs 11:14). I respect that totally. That's where I started. Eventually I realized that the theologians were quoting each other more than the Bible, and where they quoted the Bible (e.g., Matthew 24) they were clearly wrong, and the better theologians among them pointed this out. It was the non-FP'ers who persuaded me to be open to FP.

    I'm just saying you should always be willing to believe whatever you're convinced the Bible really is saying, even if this conclusion implies that the theologians are wrong. As long as you're willing to continue studying like a Berean, then the fact that your convictions are not based directly on the Bible, but on what the theologians say, is OK with me.

    For now. :-)

    ReplyDelete