Our last article in this series ended with the clear, imminent warning of the Lord's soon return (or second coming) for the purpose of judgment against those who had "...trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which He was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace" (Heb. 10:29). But there was also the other aspect of His return that pertains to the faithful who were waiting for this imminent event. The writer says, "...To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time apart from sin for salvation" (9:28). The significance of His return for the faithful was the consummation of all their salvation hopes, which answers to the words of Paul who just as clearly expresses this imminent expectation of completed salvation in the epistle to the Romans when he said, "...now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand..." (13:11-12). To the honest mind unimpeded by tradition, this consistent theme is absolutely ingrained and pervasive in the New Testament development of the "Scheme of Redemption." Next we move on to the passage that this writer sees as one of the most clear and demanding contexts, if not "the most" clear and demanding context supporting the Preterist view of eschatology.
8. James 5:7-9: "Therefore be patient, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, waiting patiently for it until it receives the early and the latter rain. You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand...Behold the judge is standing at the door"! God need only say something once for it be the truth. If this one passage were the only thing said about the imminent return of Jesus, it would be more than sufficient to sway the honest student to adopt the Preterist view of eschatology.
The force of this passage cannot be overstated! First and foremost there are the obvious demands of the terms themselves: "the coming of the Lord is at hand," and "the judge is standing at the door." If these terms do not demand an imminent return of Jesus, then language means nothing and the Bible is unintelligible. The reason being that almost all of the brethren who hold to the traditional amillennial view of eschatology understand this language and agree with the definition given to it in these contexts by the Preterist as long as it is in a passage not mentioning the Parousia of Christ. In fact, the largest irony of this whole situation is that they are now employing argumentation for the purpose of attempting to refute the imminent return of Jesus that is identical to the arguments fathered by the Premillennialists to avoid an imminent expectation of the coming kingdom during the ministry of Christ.
These arguments my amillennial brethren have castigated and impugned as simply "the product of necessity" for the purpose of holding to theology that is riddled with error. But when faced with the understanding that the identical terminology and construction are employed showing their theology also to be full of error relative to the Parousia of Christ, rather than admitting the evident inconsistency most if not all of them simply adopt the identical argument used by the dispensationalists to try to refute the imminent coming of the kingdom in the first century--an argument that they themselves (i.e., the traditional amillennialists) have labeled as one of the poorest theological defenses that can be offered. What most of my amillennial brethren fail to see is that they have surrendered the whole foundation of their arguments with the Dispensationalist to attempt to answer the Preterist. Error is always its own worst enemy! (For a vivid example of this, see the December issue of "Living Presence" and the fine article by Don Preston, which reviews the writings of Wayne Jackson.) Jackson is one of the most vocal critics of both the Premillennial and the Preterist views of eschatology. And although he has a good grasp on many biblical issues, the honest reader will be able to see from the quotations cited the gross inconsistency of his argumentation from one passage to the next. Absolutely scores of other writers could be quoted also who essentially make the same mistake as Jackson).)
It must be emphasized that there is absolutely no way to explain away the clear time demands of this passage without resurrecting and giving a stamp of approval to every specious argument ever made by the millennial theologians in their need to avoid the impact and meaning of "at hand" in Matthew 3:1-2 and 4:17. God truly is not the author of confusion, and anyone making arguments so drastically contradictory as this must immediately be suspect.
Not only do we have the clear demands of the terms themselves, we also have the double strength of the illustrations that James uses to explain exactly what he means. This writer believes that it is absolutely impossible to deny the imminence of the return of Christ Jesus in the first century when considering this passage (the clarity of this passage is so overwhelming that many writers don't even attempt to deny its imminence but rather apply it to the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. See for instance the very good study book on James entitled, " The Man Who Has Faith, Studies In James", by Winfred Clark and Wayne Dunaway).
Two illustrations are used by James to demonstrate to these Christians that a heavenly judgment would soon be rendered on their behalf that would vanquish their spiritual enemies and would vindicate and fulfill all of their Messianic expectations. He uses the examples of the farmer and of Job. There are three pervasive themes that thread themselves through both of these illustrations. First and foremost is the control that God exercises over the whole situation. Second is the need for those to whom these things are written to learn patience from the illustrations used. And thirdly, there is the incontrovertible "imminent" time factor that can be avoided only by abject neglect.
It is lucidly clear to this writer that James did not want his readers to miss the clear nearness of the time of Christ's return. Why else would he use two illustrations when the first one was so vividly precise? The second illustration can be only for the purpose of exaggerated emphasis (such is common in the Bible).
In verse seven he cites the example of a farmer who plants his crop and then waits for the seasonal rains that will insure the growth of his crop to harvest. There is not even a poor way of taking the time considerations of the illustration linked with the time statements themselves and putting 2000+ years between the giving of this prophecy and its fulfillment. There is, first of all, the clear notion of God's control. Beyond the physical action of planting the seed the farmer has no control over what the seed does, or of the rains. Secondly, the farmer must be patient; there is an inherent time element that cannot be changed by the farmer no matter how much he worries. But thirdly, there is the imminent time factor that the traditionalist simply wants to ignore. What farmer ever planted a crop and then relative to the time of the harvest said, "Well I may get a crop in a short time or it may be 2000 years"? To ask the question is to show its foolishness relative to the illustration. They knew that all farmers' livelihoods depend on the crop's coming soon. No farmer is expected to be patient with a planted crop that does not produce for 2000 years.
These saints were going through extremely difficult times. If you were in their shoes undergoing severe trials and were told by an inspired man that the coming of the Lord in judgment and vindication was "at hand" and "at the door", and then he illustrated that time frame by the normal planting and reaping cycle of the farmer, would you think He was being non-specific or vague about the time factors involved? Would you ever have developed the notion that it might be 2000 years before this would happen? In fact, after a reasonable
amount of time, might one not begin to think that he had been deceived by James if this judgment on their behalf didn't take place as our traditionalist brethren demand? The answer is obvious. They would never have said, "Well all James really means is that we need to live like it might happen at any time."
Let those of us committed to the full inspiration of scripture admit what is being said here. James is not issuing non-committal vagaries or foundationless hopes and wishes. He is giving authoritative, inspired proclamations. Both his words and illustrations have perfect and specific clarity and can be denied only by one with an assumed theological agenda to defend.
The second illustration of Job is equally as vivid. Is Job still waiting after thousands of years for his Divine vindication? Such is a ludicrous assertion. Job's faith and patience were rewarded in his lifetime. Again, God was in control. Secondly, God taught Job the need for patiently waiting for God's work. And then thirdly, even though Job was not able to know that his vindication was imminent, the illustration is used for the benefit of James's audience, that knowing Job was soon to be vindicated in his lifetime they then could expect the vindication that God soon would render on their behalf.
To relegate this section of scripture to any other time than something near to the lives of the recipients of this letter sends serious reverberations through the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, and as this writer believes, would only prove the need for Divine intervention to enable us to know when words have their normal meanings and when they don't. But rather than being non-specific and vague, it is lucidly clear and is simply one more major support for the Preterist view of the first-century Parousia of Christ in 70 A.D. to spiritually consummate His New Covenant. (To be continued).
