Many bible passages warn us to be ready of Christ’s unexpected, sudden return. But many bible passages also indicate numerous important and visible events that must take place before Christ returns.
Here's the thing. Why the urgency to prepare for Christ’s return, if the events that precede Christ’s return have not happened yet? Isn’t it wiser to just wait it out and observe world events, instead of running helter-skelter?
Also, if the important events that precede Christ’s return are observable, how can Christ’s return be unexpected then? Isn’t it contradictory to prepare of something unexpected, if we know what will happen before that?
So, how? Can Christ really come at any time?
Two possible solutions to solve Chicken Little’s tension:
A) Concede that Christ could not come at any time.
This position, as taken by Louis Berkhof, has two difficulties. Firstly, it seems to nullify the force of the warnings of Jesus to “take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is” (Mark 13:33). Secondly, it seems to use the signs in a way quite opposite from the way Jesus intended them to be used. Jesus meant for the signs to intensify our sense of eager expectation. But rather, this position uses the signs as a reason to convince ourselves that “Jesus couldn’t come for a many more years, not until this sign and that sign is fulfilled.”
B) Accept that Christ indeed could come at any time.
The prelude of signs can be reconciled with the unexpected return of Christ in 3 ways:
i) The New Testament talks about two distinct returns of Christ – a secret, invisible coming (i.e. a coming for His saints, or Rapture) and a public, visible coming (i.e. a coming with His saints to reign over the earth). The secret coming can occur at any moment. The public coming will occur after the signs are fulfilled.
The difficulty of this position, as proposed by John Nelson Darby, is that it is hard to separate two separate comings of Christ from the bible. And since the suggestion of this position is quite recent (i.e. in the 19th century), this shows that this position isn’t the only possible solution to Chicken Little’s tension.
ii) All the signs have been fulfilled, and therefore Christ could indeed return at any moment.
This position is not convincing. It is not convincing to look back at history and try to see how the signs have been fulfilled in certain key events in the past. It is like trying to squeeze Scripture into the mould of history, when it should be the other way around. It is like trying to make Scripture say what we want it to say, and trying to see the signs as we would want to see them.
iii) Admit that it is unlikely, but possible that the signs have already been fulfilled.
This view proposes that we cannot pinpoint with certainty whether or not the signs have been fulfilled in history. Therefore, it is unlikely that the signs have happened. However, since we cannot know for sure whether or not the signs have been fulfilled, it is also possible that they have already happened.
So, if Chicken Little holds on to this view, he will always be on his toes. When he sees a wave of events happening in the world, it may or may not be the last, real sign before Christ returns. If it was, he will be ready. Even if it wasn’t, each successive wave of events will increase his sense of expectancy of Christ’s return.
And this is good. Responsible exegesis of Scripture, an expectation of Christ’s sudden return, and a measure of humility in human understanding, are all three preserved in this position.
As for me, at this moment of time, I’m with solution B, and a combination of option (i) and (iii).
A) Concede that Christ could not come at any time.
This position, as taken by Louis Berkhof, has two difficulties. Firstly, it seems to nullify the force of the warnings of Jesus to “take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is” (Mark 13:33). Secondly, it seems to use the signs in a way quite opposite from the way Jesus intended them to be used. Jesus meant for the signs to intensify our sense of eager expectation. But rather, this position uses the signs as a reason to convince ourselves that “Jesus couldn’t come for a many more years, not until this sign and that sign is fulfilled.”
B) Accept that Christ indeed could come at any time.
The prelude of signs can be reconciled with the unexpected return of Christ in 3 ways:
i) The New Testament talks about two distinct returns of Christ – a secret, invisible coming (i.e. a coming for His saints, or Rapture) and a public, visible coming (i.e. a coming with His saints to reign over the earth). The secret coming can occur at any moment. The public coming will occur after the signs are fulfilled.
The difficulty of this position, as proposed by John Nelson Darby, is that it is hard to separate two separate comings of Christ from the bible. And since the suggestion of this position is quite recent (i.e. in the 19th century), this shows that this position isn’t the only possible solution to Chicken Little’s tension.
ii) All the signs have been fulfilled, and therefore Christ could indeed return at any moment.
This position is not convincing. It is not convincing to look back at history and try to see how the signs have been fulfilled in certain key events in the past. It is like trying to squeeze Scripture into the mould of history, when it should be the other way around. It is like trying to make Scripture say what we want it to say, and trying to see the signs as we would want to see them.
iii) Admit that it is unlikely, but possible that the signs have already been fulfilled.
This view proposes that we cannot pinpoint with certainty whether or not the signs have been fulfilled in history. Therefore, it is unlikely that the signs have happened. However, since we cannot know for sure whether or not the signs have been fulfilled, it is also possible that they have already happened.
So, if Chicken Little holds on to this view, he will always be on his toes. When he sees a wave of events happening in the world, it may or may not be the last, real sign before Christ returns. If it was, he will be ready. Even if it wasn’t, each successive wave of events will increase his sense of expectancy of Christ’s return.
And this is good. Responsible exegesis of Scripture, an expectation of Christ’s sudden return, and a measure of humility in human understanding, are all three preserved in this position.
As for me, at this moment of time, I’m with solution B, and a combination of option (i) and (iii).
How about you?
1 comment:
I am for the opinion that not all the prerequisites have been satisfied, although I leave room that the signs might already have been fulfilled. For example, has the Gospel has been preached to all (politically-dileanated) nations yet? Or do we need to actually reach every variant language group first? Or is this a non-requirement for the Second Coming?
People over the years have had different interpretations of the fulfilment of signs. The End Times have been 'definitely signalled' by everything from the fall of Imperial Rome, to the rise of Nazi Germany, to the Cold War, to the formation of the state of Israel, to the fall of Communism, to Saddam Hussein's ambitions, to the European Union, to the Ecumenical movement, to the rise of powerful political-slash-religious forces.
And of course, various modern 'prophets' have predicted the Second Coming, such as the Mormonism founder Joseph Smith's prediction that the Second Coming of Christ would be definitely be in 1891. Less than a stellar performance on that one.
I myself wondered for a while if the US invasion of Iraq would lead to its economic development, rich in petroleum, thus creating a literal world-power Babylon The Great instead of a just a figurative one. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/13/news/babylon.php
Add to that countless fiction that attempt to realistically portray the prelude to the End Times. Left Behind is a widely known series along those lines. Each different author has their own idea of what happens to fulfill the signs, often in quite ingenius and happen-able ways.
Choo Thomas, author of Heaven Is So Real, writes her testimony of one of her visions. According to her, the Rapture will take place when her grandkids are still recognizably young, and George W. Bush is still the US President. If the 22nd Amendment holds (nobody can become President more than twice), then Rapture will have to be by 20 January 2009. But if something serious like a major war breaks out, he might end up being retained for the duration. I did wonder if North Korea and Iran acting up on nukes was one way that could happen. Note: Visions are usually more metaphorical/imagery than literal.
With so many ideas, clues and warnings flying aroud, when the event DOES happen, we may not have recognized the signs pointing to it because of so many false starts. This is one way that the signs all need to be fulfilled first, yet mankind won't know when the time actually is. We'll realize it only afterwards, and slap our foreheads at God's originality that defeats all our best predictions. (Well if Pre-tribulation Rapture is correct, then we'll be doing that in the up above.)
So I agree with you that as more 'This-Is-It!' events occur, the momentum is building for the real thing to finally happen. In the meantime, do we live our lives normally, casually every day? Or rush to save as many souls as we can as if the Rapture is almost upon us? Or aim for some medium-run combination?
Post a Comment