Having laid most of the significant ground work toward approaching these critical time statments, we now shall examine the specific passages that hold these time referents, and note whether they indeed are specific and imminent, or generic, requiring no specific historical time for fulfillment. The rest of the articles in this particular series will simply be candid exposes of the clear time demands in a host of passages. The reader is passionately encouraged to read the articles in this series before going on if he has not already done so.
3. John 21:22-13. "Jesus said to him, If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me...If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?" It is genuinely hard for me to accept that the Bible was meant for man to understand if we can't take this passage at its clear meaning. It is imperative to understand that two things could be expected in relation to the return of Christ that clearly limit the time factor of His return. First of all, Peter would die and not see the return of Christ (c.f. 2 Pet.l:l4); secondly, John would live to see the return of Christ. If this be not the meaning, then at best we would have Jesus giving what would appear to be a very misleading statement.
What, you may ask, is the answer of those who hold to the traditional "second coming" view? Once again they generalize where the scriptures are very specific. Most generally they attribute the statement of Jesus to Peter as being an extremely facetious "mind-your-own-business" type of statement. While such an explanation unquestionably is weak, in all candor it is the only answer that the traditionalist can postulate.
The perceptive student, however, can see immediately that from Peter's allusion to the Lord's words (2 Pet.1:14) he took it literally. In so doing he offers us inspired understanding of the text, namely, Jesus said what He meant and meant what he said! Peter took Christ's words very "seriously" and "literally." My amillennialist brothers, while taking Christ's words seriously, do not as did Peter, take them literally. This writer chooses to side with Peter's inspired view rather than with the tradition of my uninspired brethren.
To continue to hold to their traditional view the amillennialist must argue with Peter's understanding, and then take a dichotomized view of the passage relative to the Lord's words about John. That reminds this writer of the distorted exegesis of the Jehovah's Witness cult, that enables them to hold to their outlandish view of the 144,000 in Revelation, the Seventh and Fourteenth chapters. When pressed the Witnesses will admit that everything within these two chapters relative to the 144,000 is symbolic except the number, "144,000." They of course must do this because the 144,000 are not in "Heaven" but on "Zion", and the "Great Multitude" (i.e., the rest of them) are not on the "rejuvenated earth" but before the "throne of God", which is exactly opposite of what it should be according to their doctrine. Add to this the fact that the 144,000 are all pictured as being "male virgins" and one readily can see why they must say, "these things are symbolic."
The obvious question is, how do you go into these two contexts and determine that everything is "symbolic" with the exception of the number, "144,00"? Of course, the answer is, you can't! No reasonable rule of exegesis and hermeneutics will allow such a dichotomy when the context is clearly a symbolic setting. But however unwittingly it might have been, this writer believes this is what he has done in the past relative to our passage under consideration as well as others that we will examine. Peter's understanding, not ours, is the inspired determiner, and he very clearly understood Jesus' words in a literal way. If that is so, and it is, then how can we step in and say that His words regarding John are not to be taken literally, but should be understood "facetiously", or as one brother with whom I am discussing these matters said, these things rather than being "prophetic" are "hypothetical." Such is clearly an exercising of exegetical "license" with God's word, that we have no right to exercise.
Since it is clear that Peter took Christ literally relative to his existence and the return of Christ, then by implication it becomes just as clear that Jesus' words about John were also literal. John would live to see the Parousia of Christ, which almost all of the New Testament writers including John said was "at hand." We must not toy with the word of God when it is so clear. The least that can be said - yea, must be said and admitted by the traditionalist is that, "Peter did seem to think that the Lord meant what He said."
We also, as Peter, should take the Lord at His word. The only thing that would dictate otherwise would be "our" presuppositions that don't fit the clear meaning. Peter's belief that Jesus meant exactly what he said is in absolute harmony with what the rest of the New Testament says about the time frame of the return of Christ, as we will continue to see clearly.
4. Rom.13:11-12. "And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light."
The force of this passage must be felt. This passage stresses eloquently the concept of imminence, and clearly identifies the reason for the thrilled anticipation of the Parousia of Christ, namely "salvation." Paul said their salvation was nearer. The question remains in all of these contexts that we have examined, and will examine, is this a human originated "guess" or "expectation," or is this an inspired "proclamation"? We could attribute to a human "guess" or "expectation" the possibility of error. While this is not a treatise on inspiration, suffice it to say, for those who hold to the full inerrant inspiration of the Bible, the clear words of Paul can be understood only as a divine "PROCLAMATION." There is not the slightest indication anywhere in the context that Paul is guessing or expressing personal hope - his language is precise with no uncertainty anywhere.
Other contexts of Paul's writing make it very clear when he is expressing desire or opinion. For instance, Paul gives his personal views and assessments of the wisdom in remaining unmarried because of the "present distress" that the Church was going through (l Cor.7:26). But he makes it very clear that there is a difference in this chapter as to what is his opinion and what is divine mandate (see 7:6-9 [opinion]; 7:10 [divine command]). Would this cautious apostle in one letter be so militant in assuring that his audience understand what his opinion was and what God's divine command was, then in another epistle speak so clearly and specifically and not identify such as his opinion? It is evident to the honest-thinking person that in our passage Paul meant exactly what he said, and he was not guessing!
There are two major factors that will show the support of this passage for the Preterist view, and will demonstrate the inability of the traditionalist construction to explain this passage. First, that this is clearly in a context and book that deals heavily with the transformation process from the Old to the New Covenant, and secondly, this is a judgment context also.
First of all, that this is a context of the development and transformation of the covenant systems is understood from the context itself (13:8-10), and by remembering the emphasis that this issue is given in the whole epistle to the Romans (expecially consider chapter 2-8; 9-11 must be given critical analysis; and then of course 14:1-15-27 shows that they were being allowed to share in the fulfillment of Israel's spiritual blessings). They, like those of Jewish background who had been obedient to the gospel, had like Christ become dead to the law (Rom.7:4). Note, he did not say that the law was dead or removed, he said they had become "dead to the law." There is a big difference. Not all that had been promised concerning the passing of the law and the fulfillment of the New had yet come to pass, and until it did it would not pass away and salvation's process would not yet be complete (Matt.5:17-19). Such is why Paul could say with such confidence that "...now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed." They had, however, through the ministry of the Spirit (who was the "seal" and "guarantee" of the coming fulfillment of the New Covenant, 2 Cor.5:1-5; Eph.1:13 and obedience to the Gospel, become themselves "dead to the requirements of the Law" (Rom.7:6), and were made partakers in the good things of the coming soon fulfillment of the New Eternal Age of Christ's fulfilled covenant (Heb.6:4-5).
Secondly, that this is in a context of judgment is easily observed just by noticing the language itself. Only in seeing the clear problems that this poses for some position one may hold on some related issue would one deny that this is vividly an eschatological context. What other day is ever spoken of as "the day" which is "at hand" with relation to completed "salvation" unless it is the judgment day of Christ?
Just what salvation were they looking for that was then closer than when they first believe? It is either as the Preterist claims, the fulfillment and consummation of the New Covenant order at 70 A.D., or it must be the judgment of Christ as perceived by the Futurist. In a written discussion that I am having with a very good friend of mine that also preaches for the Lord's Church, he makes the only response that can be made when he asks, "Where is Christ's return ever mentioned here?"
First of all, when confronted with the clear time problems within this text, this brother has rejected what a search of commentaries and scholarly sources readily agree upon, namely this is dealing with the return of Christ in judgment. Secondly, we must point out the clear inconsistency of Paul showing that their personal salvation was as yet incomplete. If it is "near" it cannot be past. Then, thirdly, stressing that the only way to avoid these incongruities is to admit that it is dealing with the return and judgment of Christ, thereby surrendering the contention that this is not dealing with Christ's return, and also forcing one to apply the vididly clear statement "at hand" to the coming of Christ. The traditional futurist construction again is found wanting, the Preterist view is vindicated and harmonious. (To be continued)
