|
1.
|
“Things which must shortly come to pass” (1: 1).
This might conceivably read, as it often is, as meaning: “things which
will begin to come to pass shortly”. But is this fair treatment of
the words? Their face value seems to require that Revelation as a whole would be
fulfilled “shortly”. And so also with 22:6.
|
2.
|
“The time is at hand” (1: 3).
|
3.
|
“I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy
candlestick out of his place” (2:5). To refer these words to the gradual
decay either of the city of Ephesus or of its ecclesia, some hundreds of years
later, cannot be considered satisfactory. “Repent; or else
...”
|
4.
|
“I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against
them with the sword of my mouth” (2:16; cp. 19:15).
|
5.
|
“That which ye have already, hold fast till I
come” (2:25).
|
6.
|
“If thou wilt not watch, I will come on thee as a
thief” (3: 3). Is it to be assumed that in all these instances, repentance
was immediate and drastic, and consequently there was no need for these threats
to be fulfilled? All that is known of the early church suggests the contrary. In
particular, “I will come on thee as a thief” points to the Second
Coming (Luke 12:39). So also does, “I will fight against them with the
sword of my mouth” (Revelation 19:15).
|
7.
|
“Behold, I come quickly” (3:11 - to Philadelphia,
and also to all (22:7, 20)
|
8.
|
The souls under the altar are told to “rest yet a little
while” until the persecution of fellow-servants is concluded
(6:11).
|
9.
|
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If any man hear
my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him and will sup with him, and he
with me” (3:20). This gracious promise to Laodicea is usually given a
timeless application to the sweet fellowship possible between Christ and the
believer. Nevertheless such a view is demonstrably a mistaken one. Careful
comparison with Luke 12:36, 37 makes it clear that here in Revelation 3:11 the
Lord is repeating an earlier promise concerning his Second Coming. And
concerning it, he now emphasizes (in A.D. 66 or thereabouts): “Behold, I
stand at the door and knock.”
|
10.
|
“Behold, I come quickly” (22:7).
|
11.
|
“Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for
the time is at hand. He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is
filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous
still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And behold, I come quickly,
and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall
be” (22:10-12) - a specially impressive passage. This fiat of the Judge of
all the world carried with it the implication that so imminent was his coming
(at the time the words were uttered) that no longer could there be time for
repentance - or even for backsliding! He comes as “quickly” as
that.
|
12.
|
“Surely, I come quickly” (22:20).
|
|
(a)
|
To agree with the modernist that what the apostles wrote was
not true, but the expression of a fond delusion universal in the early church
and shared by the apostles. All who accept the inspiration and authority of Holy
Scripture find such a view utterly unacceptable.
|
|
(b)
|
To agree that a Second Coming of Christ did take place in A.D.
70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of Israel. This view,
usually supported by Matthew 22:7 and by 2 Peter 3, and by nothing else, must be
written off because:
|
|
|
(i)
|
Biblical evidence for it is quite inadequate.
|
|
|
(ii)
|
A.D. 70 was not a Coming of Christ. (Note:
“and after that thou shalt cut it down;” Luke 13:9). This
invisible Coming of the Lord is “Jehovah’s Witnesses”
teaching!
|
|
|
(iii)
|
It simply will not explain the passages it is intended to
explain. Let the reader try it and see!
|
|
(c)
|
To assume that this early “Second Coming” is what
is elsewhere spoken of as Christ’s abiding invisible presence in his
Ecclesia. “Behold, I am with you always, even to the consummation of the
age.” This will hardly do, if only because in that sense Christ
never went away! Further, let the student attempt to read this idea into the
passages cited and then ask himself whether he can honestly declare himself
satisfied.
|
|
(d)
|
For every believer the next conscious moment after the day of
his death will be his resurrection. Thus the Second Coming is, in effect, no
further away than the day of one’s death. So from this point of view the
apostles were justified in writing as though the Lord’s return was only a
few years away. This idea has been given uncritical welcome by too many. It is a
pity more careful thought has not been given to it. Two serious
criticisms:
|
|
|
(i)
|
It is an entirely un-Biblical idea. It does not appear in any
form whatever in the New Testament. This fact alone should restrain enthusiasm
regarding it.
|
|
|
(ii)
|
Even if the key fits (sic!), it won’t turn. Let
it be tried on a few examples: e.g. Matthew 10:23; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 5:23; 2
Peter 2:3; 1 John 2:17, 18.
|
|
(e)
|
The method formerly adopted by the writer of these words - to
seek to improvise a separate explanation for each of the passages which provoke
the problem - is a method which can be pursued with tolerable success so far,
until it ends in a realization that the scheme is breaking down under its own
weight of over-lengthy explanation. For example, in several passages in 1
Thessalonians (especially 4:15-17) Paul writes as though he and his readers
would be among those who are “alive and remain unto the coming of the
Lord”. Here it is possible to reason that Paul, for the sake of argument
and perhaps to make his point more clear, deliberately chose to class himself
with those alive at the Lord’s coming. But is this altogether
satisfactory, since he could with even greater lucidity have written
“those who are alive and remain”? When this kind of approach
has been made to something like a couple of dozen passages, it begins to feel a
bit threadbare. To attempt to maintain this “explain away” method
when in discussion with a well-informed modernist is to court disaster. In such
a case instead of being on the offensive, as every protagonist of the Truth
should always be, the believer finds himself desperately defending a whole
series of weak points insecurely held.
|
|
13.
|
“The Lord is at hand” (Philippians
4:5).
|
14.
|
“The end of all things is at hand” (1 Peter
4:7). It is taking too big a liberty to say that “at hand” means
“after 2,000 years,” especially when “my time is at
hand” (Matthew 26:18) means “within twenty-four hours,” and
“the time of my departure is at hand” (2 Timothy 4:6) means
“in a few days” time” or possibly “within a few
weeks.”
|
15.
|
“For yet a little while, and he that shall come
will come, and will not tarry” (Hebrews 10:37). What did Jesus mean when
he said: “Little children, yet a little while I am with you”
(John 13:33)?
|
16.
|
“The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet
shortly” (Romans 16:20).
|
17.
|
“But this I say, that the time is short” (1
Corinthians 7:29). When the Apostle wrote in the same epistle, “I will
come to you shortly,” did he mean “in about 2,000 years”
time”?
|
18.
|
“Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till
the Son of man be come” (Matthew 10:23).
|
19.
|
“Immediately after the tribulation of those
days...” (Matthew 24:29). The most natural way to read these words is that
the “signs” Christ went on to mention were to follow immediately on
the horrors associated with the fall of Jerusalem.
|
20.
|
“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his
Father with his angels: and then he shall reward every man according to his
works. 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”
(Matthew 16:27,28). It is customary to refer these words to the Transfiguration,
which took place a week later. Such can be at best only a primary fulfilment,
for (a) the context suggests the actual Second Coming; (b) why should Jesus say
“some... here which shall not taste of death” concerning an
event only a week away; the passage reads strangely when taken this way; (c) the
parallel in Mark 9:1 has “the kingdom of God come with
power.” The Greek perfect participle here seems to imply: “come to
stay.”
|
21.
|
“This generation shall not pass, till all these things
be fulfilled” (Matthew 24:34). Here “this generation” must not
be translated “this race,” for the Jew is immortal. The most natural
way to take the words is: “This generation to which I am speaking.”
But faced with the fact that that generation passed away long ago, the modern
expositor has to suggest: “this generation which witnesses the signs
described.” Adequate, perhaps, but not entirely satisfactory.
|
22.
|
“Hereafter ye shall see the Son of man... coming
in the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). It is a very watery
interpretation, which takes this as meaning “the Jews, 2,000 years hence,
shall see...”
|
23.
|
“They returned to Jerusalem with great joy” (Luke
24:52). Is there not implied here an understanding that the angel’s
promise (Acts 1:11) would soon be fulfilled? And if this was the rash assumption
of, their human ignorance, why should it be given such a misleading prominence
in the inspired record?
|
24.
|
“For now is our salvation nearer than when we
believed... the night is far spent, the day is at hand” (Romans 13:11,
12). Would it be extreme to say that application of these words to anything but
the Second Coming sounds very much like casuistry?
|
25.
|
“Maranatha” (1 Corinthians 16:22) - “Our
Lord cometh” - had little point as a Christian watchword in the First
Century if that coming was to be many generations later.
|
26.
|
“... to serve the living and true God, and to wait for
His Son from heaven” (1 Thessalonians 1 :10) reads very strangely except
as meaning that these Thessalonians could expect to see the coming of the Lord
from heaven.
|
27.
|
“I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body
be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1
Thessalonians 5:23).
|
28.
|
“God... hath in these last days spoken unto us by
his Son” (Hebrews 1: 2). The only alternative interpretation here seems to
be with reference to the “last days” of the Mosaic economy. But what
of:
|
29.
|
“Exhorting one another: and so much the more as ye see
the day approaching” (Hebrews 10:25)? “The Day” was the normal
way for a Jew to refer to the Day of Atonement - what Day of Atonement but the
coming of the Lord (Hebrews 9:28)? In no other way does the passage make
sense.
|
30.
|
“The coming of the Lord draweth nigh... the judge
standeth before the door” (James 5: 8, 9). Can these words have any other
meaning than the obvious one?
|
31.
|
“False prophets ... whose judgement now of a long time
lingereth not” (2 Peter 2:3). What other judgement can this be than
the Day of Judgement?
|
32.
|
“For the world is passing away ... Little children, it
is the last time (R.V. hour); and as ye have heard that anti-Christ shall come,
cven now are there many antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last
time” (1 John 2:17, 18).
|
33.
|
“The apostles ... told you that there should be mockers
(2 Peter 3:3) in the last time ... These be they ... “ says Jude (18, 19)
speaking of his own day.
|
|
1.
|
When the twelve spies searched the land, faithless Israel
chose to accept the God-dishonouring report of the faithless ten rather than the
wholesome exhortation of the faithful two. So judgement was pronounced against
them: “Surely ye shall not come into the Land, concerning which I sware to
make you dwell therein, save Caleb and Joshua. Your carcasses shall fall in this
wilderness. And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years ...
After the number of days which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day
for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall
know my breach of promise (mg: the altering of my purpose)” (Numbers
14:30-34).
|
|
|
|
Had Israel relied in faith on the faithfulness of their God,
the Land would have been theirs within a matter of months. Because they found no
place for either faith or repentance there came in this “altering of
God’s purpose,” a deferment of fulfilment of His promise; and Israel
entered the Land forty years later than they might have done.
|
|
|
2.
|
The second example is remarkably similar, though not so well
known.
|
|
|
|
Moses’ obvious disposition to assume the leadership of
his enslaved people, m token of which he slew an oppressing Egyptian is often
(almost always, in fact) interpreted as the action of a headstrong young man who
was not prepared to await God’s own good time. But Scripture says
differently. The R.V. of Acts 7:25 reads, with admirable exactness: “And
he supposed that his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand
was giving them deliverance, but they understood not”. The view
that Moses was seeking to bring a deliverance which God did not intend at that
time could hardly be further from the truth, God was giving them deliverance,
and they refused both the deliverer and the deliverance (“the reproach
of Christ” Hebrews 11:26), and thus condemned themselves to another forty
years of bondage - a forty-year postponement of a promised redemption!
|
|
|
|
That this is the correct interpretation of the incident is
confirmed by the way in which the passage just cited became the king-pin of
Stephen’s argument that, as the nation’s scorning of Moses had
confirmed and intensified their squalid bondage in Egypt, so now their more
emphatic rejection of the prophet like unto Moses (v. 37) was to lead to
consequences yet more dire - that is, unless they repented, in which case, just
as Moses brought deliverance forty years later, so also would Christ (forty
years later? - A.D. 70).
|
|
|
3.
|
“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”
declared Jonah in the streets of that exceeding great city, but about two
hundred years later Nineveh was still standing, mighty as ever. The explanation:
“God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God
repented of the evil that He said He would do unto them; and He did it
not.” Nor will it do to argue that Jonah’s message included also:
“Repent from your evil ways, and God’s judgements will not come upon
you.” Such an idea, for which there is no evidence whatever in the text,
is precluded by ch. 3:9 and also by the character of Jonah - he did not wish
Nineveh to be saved from destruction.
|
|
|
4.
|
Elijah the prophet announced divine judgement against weak and
wicked king Ahab: “Thus saith the Lord, In the place where dogs licked the
blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine (that last phrase is
emphatic) ... Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will utterly sweep thee
away” (I Kings 21:19, 21 R.V.). Nevertheless the full intensity of this
doom was deferred to the time of Joram: “Because Ahab humbleth himself
before me, I will not bring the evil in his days; but in his son’s days
will I bring the evil upon his house” (v. 29).
|
|
|
5.
|
Another instance in the reign of Ahab. In the enacted parable
of the smiting of the disguised prophet, the oracle was uttered: “Because
thou hast let go out of thy hand a man (the king of Syria) whom I had appointed
to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life and thy people
for his people” (1 Kings 20:42). This Benhadad had been “appointed
to utter destruction” in the battle of “the princes of the
provinces” - appointed to this fate by God! - and yet through the weakness
or perversity of Ahab he had been let go scot free. Doubtless his
“destruction” did come at a later period, but it did not take place
at the time originally “appointed.” The divine plan concerning
Benhadad was deferred.
|
|
|
6.
|
Hezekiah was told that he was about to die; yet his prayer of
faith added fifteen years to his life. Even if it could be argued (which it
cannot) that Hezekiah would have been better without that extension of his life,
this view would not affect the plain facts of the case that - what the prophet
of the Lord pronounced as about to happen was in reality postponed for fifteen
years.
|
|
|
7.
|
Perhaps in the same category, though with rather different
features, is the three-day plague appointed in the reign of David. In point of
fact, the angel was bidden to stay his hand before the first day was over. See 2
Samuel 24:15, 16 (Hebrew text) and Speaker’s Commentary at that
place.
|
|
|
8.
|
To these should probably be added the familiar words of
Genesis 2:17: “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely
die”. But Adam ate, and lived over 900 years! To argue that in that very
day he suffered spiritual death simply will not do. Only too obviously Genesis
2:17 is about physical death as the penalty for sin. Nor will the
frequently heard Idea stand that in the day of Adam’s eating the slow but
certain processes of mortality began to work in his members. This is hopelessly
to misunderstand the Hebrew idiom: “dying thou shalt die.”
|
|
|
|
The truth is that Adam’s sentence of death was deferred
because of his repentance (shewn in the offering of a sacrifice: ch. 3:21) and
his faith (expressed in the re-naming of his wife as the mother of the promised
Seed; ch. 3:20).
|
|
1.
|
“Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may
be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence
of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who hath been appointed for
you, even Jesus” (Acts 3:19, 20 R.V.). Omitting the intervening clauses in
order to throw the main point (for present purposes) into sharper relief:
“Repent ... so that he may send the Christ ... “ This shews clearly
that the sending of Jesus a second time was to be a consequence conditional
or, the repentance of Israel.
|
|
|
2.
|
In 2 Peter 3 the apostle addresses himself to the problem: Why
the apparent delay in the Lord’s return? Not because the Lord is
“slack concerning his promise, but because He is longsuffering to us-ward,
not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to
repentance” (v. 9). According to this, there has been a deliberate
withholding of fulfilment of the divine purpose, in order to give opportunity
for repentance. With this compare v. 15: “And account that the
long-suffering of our Lord (in not sending Christ in judgement) is (your
opportunity of) salvation.”
|
|
|
3.
|
The proposition is also stated conversely in vv. 11, 12:
“What manner of persons ought ye to be in holy conversation and godliness,
looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God...” The A.V.
reading of this passage is difficult to the point of impossibility. How can one
“hasten unto the coming of the day of God”, since it comes to
the disciple, and not he to it? The perfectly good translation suggested by both
the A.V. and R.V. margins is free from this difficulty: “hastening the
coming of the day of God.”[88] How? By
“your holy conversation and godliness”. The idea is exactly the same
as Acts 3:19, 20. With this compare also:
|
|
|
4.
|
“Ye that are the Lord’s remembrancers, keep not
silence, and give him no rest, till he establish, and till he make Jerusalem a
praise in the earth” (Isaiah 62:6 R.V.). Why all this agonizing in prayer
if it not going to affect one whit the time of the bringing in of God’s
new heaven and earth? Why should Jesus require his disciples to pray “Thy
kingdom come,” if such prayers are of no force whatever to affect the
coming of that kingdom, not even by five minutes? Have they gone studiously
ignored in the counsels of heaven?
|
|
|
5.
|
“For if the casting away of them (Israel) be the
reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the
dead”? (Romans 11:15). In other words (rather like a proportion sum in
arithmetic) the cutting off of Israel has led to the Gospel being preached to
the Gentiles: likewise the consequence of their being received back to
God’s favour (through repentance, the only way; hence Malachi 4:5!) will
be life from the dead, i.e. the resurrection - and therefore, by
implication, the Second Coming of Christ.
|
|
|
6.
|
The fruitless fig-tree in the vineyard was without doubt a
figure of Israel unresponsive to God. “Lord, let it alone this year also
(after three fruitless years), till I shall dig it about and dung it”
(Luke 13:8). The words are a clear anticipation of the all-out effort, which
Jesus made in the end of his ministry to bring Israel to a sense of its
responsibilities. “And if it bear fruit, well: and, if not, then after
that thou shalt cut it down”. The words envisage the distinct possibility
that Israel might repent and thus make divine judgement unnecessary. Thus the
long period of Israel’s persecution and scattering would have been
eliminated. Compare Deuteronomy 28:1, 15.
|
|
|
7.
|
“Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom
to Israel? ... It is not for you to know the times or the seasons ... But ye
shall receive power ... and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and
in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth”
(Acts 1:6-8). It can hardly be that Jesus is here evading the issue by a deft
change of subject. His answer is relevant. How? As who should say: “It is
not for you to know when the kingdom will come, but this I can say - it depends
on your efforts in preaching.” Thus the same conclusion as before is
indicated.
|
|
|
8.
|
“And John said, I am the voice of one crying in the
wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias”
(John 1:23). But the context of these words from Isaiah 40 is: “Speak ye
comfortably to Jerusalem and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished,
that her iniquity is pardoned ... And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed,
and all flesh shall see it together ... Behold, the Lord God will come with
strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him...” Hence it follows that if
Israel had made straight the way of the Lord (which they didn’t), the rest
of this prophecy would also have found fulfilment then. And only when Israel do
make straight the way of the Lord will these words be fulfilled.
|
|
|
9.
|
“But that he should be made manifest to Israel,
therefore am I come baptizing with water” (John 1:31). Either these words
mean that John’s baptizing was itself a means of manifesting Christ to
Israel, or they re-inforce the conclusion already reached, i.e. that
through repentance and baptism Israel would bring in the reign of their
Messiah.
|
|
|
10.
|
Perhaps this is the proper place to draw attention to Mark
13:32. “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” Yet is seems
reasonable to believe that if an understanding of the chronological framing of
the ages can be gained from a study of Bible “times and seasons,”
then even in the days of his flesh that knowledge would have been the
Lord’s, so masterly was his insight into the Word. That he did not know
must surely be taken to mean that from the human point of view the
precise time still remained indeterminate.
|
|
|
11.
|
In harmony with this is the significant occurrence of the
Greek particle  in practically every New
Testament
passage which speaks of the time of the Lord’s return. This small and
practically untranslatable particle always imports an element of contingency or
doubt into any statement where it is included, “giving to a proposition or
sentence a stamp of uncertainty, and mere possibility, and indicating a
dependence on circumstances” (Edward Robinson - Lexicon).
|
|
|
|
For instance, all the Synoptists include it in connection with
the statement, “There be some of them which stand here which shall not
taste of death till (, it may be) they have
seen the
kingdom of God come with power. “ So also every New Testament quotation of
Psalm 110:1 “until (, ever) I make thy
foes
thy footstool”. Specially forceful is the following: “Ye shall not
see my henceforth, till (, the time whenever
that
may be) ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord”
(Matthew 23: 39).
|
|
|
|
Other passages which by the use of the same word suggest that
the time of the Lord’s return would be dependent upon some unspecified
contingency are: Matthew 10:23 and 12:20; Luke 19:23; 1 Corinthians 4:5 and
11:26; James 5:7; Revelation 2:25.
|
|
|
12.
|
This principle of repentance as the necessary condition
for the fulfilment of God’s purposes with Israel is repeated again and
again in the Old Testament. The reader should consider in succession Leviticus
26:40-42 (with its pointed references to the Promises to the Fathers); 1 Kings
8:46-53; Daniel 9:4-19, especially v. 13; Nehemiah 1: 5-11; Malachi 4:5, 6;
Isaiah 17:7, 8 and 40:3 and 59:20; Zephaniah 2:3; Romans 11: 15; Ezekiel
20:42-44; Psalm 81:13; Deuteronomy 30:1-3; Jeremiah 4:1, 2.
|
