Re: RE: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)

From: Jack <>
Date: Thu Oct 16 2008 - 13:59:03 EDT
The return in 70 AD was most likely a theophany (Christophany?) than a physical return.  There are reports in Josephus of theophany like events, chariots in the sky for example.
The important thing to keep in mind, is what the prophecies associated with the return of Christ, and that was judgement, and the start of the age to come.  The judgement was the destruction of the temple, it was a judgement on Israel.  This ended the Jewish age, and began the time of the gentiles, the age of the Church, the eternal kingdom of Christ. 

Oct 16, 2008 05:31:30 PM, wrote:

Another possible solution to the imminency passages is the preterist view, which says that the prophesy of Jesus' imminent return and the coming of his kingdom, etc. were fulfilled in 70AD”

How could Jesus’ imminent return be fulfilled in the preterist view?  Who saw him return?  Was it invisible?  What did He do when He returned?  A short answer is appreciated.


From: [] On Behalf Of Jack Syme
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 3:56 AM
To: Joseph DeGroot;
Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)

Yes yes yes.


And all of my preterist friends are YEC.    I have been telling them for years that and old earth is much more consistent with preterism than YEC is.  Just as I have brought up the topic here, but no one ever bites.

----- Original Message -----

From: Joseph DeGroot


Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:51 PM

Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)

Another possible solution to the imminency passages is the preterist view, which says that the prophesy of Jesus' imminent return and the coming of his kingdom, etc. were fulfilled in 70AD with the destruction of and the temple.  I'm no expert on this by any means, so I'll stop here, except for a couple relevant links:


Stephen Douglas over at recently wrote a post describing how preterism fits together quite well with theistic evolution.  It can be found at


Also, the main thesis of the book Beyond Creation Science by Timothy P. Martin and Jeffrey Vaughn is that Old Earth Creationism (or theistic evolution) and futurism (the belief that Christ's return is in the future) are inconsistent.  They argue that hermeneutically, preterism is more consistent.  More at


-Joe (my first post after lurking for many years)







On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:22 PM, David Opderbeck> wrote:

Bernie, I don't think the behavior in Acts 4 is simply a result about being mistaken concerning Christ's return.  It is a result of the Holy Spirit changing lives in the culutral setting of the Church at that time.  We still do (or should do) things like this today.  My home church has a benevolence ministry and it is supported such that there should not be any reason for anyone in our church to become destitute.  Recall also that Paul addresses this problem in 2 Thess. 6:13 and concludes that an idle person who is not willing to work is not entitled to support.


As to 2 Peter, you point out a difficult hermeneutical problem.  We can debate what it would mean for the flood to be "historical," but I'd rather not get into that again.  However one resolves the hermeneutical problem of the historical referent for the reference to the flood in 2 Peter, the point is that God judges in his own time; delay does not mean God has forgotten.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Dehler, Bernie> wrote:

Hi Bethany and George- thanks for your quick response. 


Let me share more about the early believer's mindset:


Acts 4:

32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.   36Joseph, a Levite from , whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means Son of Encouragement), 37sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles' feet.


Today many Christians think they did that because of their devotion.  We don't do it today simply because we aren't as devoted.  I disagree.  I think they did it because of their belief- that Christ was coming very, very, very soon.  In that vein, it makes perfect sense.  If we really thought Christ was going to return this year, then we would sell our college funds and retirement funds.  Of course we can't think that way, because we have 2,000 years of water under the bridge.


I'm thinking these disciples were taught by Jesus.  Jesus must have been clear with them.  They would not live drastically like that if the message had not been clear.  It seems like either Jesus was wrong, or these people were doing something that Jesus never told them to do (which doesn't sound reasonable).  Or maybe they were just living together that way because that was the way the Lord lived with them, as a commune?


Also, George, about the Earth being around a few billions years already… I also thought about that, and felt kind of guilty, like I was being judged by this Scripture:


3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.


Double guilty, because of the passage of time I can't feel like Christ is going to return tomorrow, and I also don't accept the story of Noah's ark as actual history.  Not dismayed, just perplexed…



From: Bethany Sollereder []
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:20 PM
To: Dehler, Bernie
Subject: Re: [asa] A theology question (imminent return of Christ)


Hey Bernie,

Funny you should mention the idea that we would not have retirement and college funds if we really believed... at the Bible college I attended, we had a speaker come in and tell us that when he was young he scorned all those things because of the immanence of Christ's return.  Now, at retirement age, he was unable to, and actually advised us not to take his path.

I'm not sure where you mean that Jesus said he would return immediately.  When he speaks of coming on the "clouds of heaven" etc. I like to follow N.T. Wright's approach which says that this is language of vindication - vindication which came with the fall of in AD 70.  As for when the second coming would be, I don't think he actually said it would be immediate.  It seems to me that most of his teachings/parables on the nature of returning are usually emphasizing the uncertainty of the timing of the return.  I'm thinking of the parables of the women with the lamps, or the servants with the master gone away.  Also, the one time Jesus speaks directly of the timing, he says he does not even know the day or the hour, only the Father knows.

I don't know that it would be a big deal if he waits another 2000 years.  Why would it be?  My job is to be faithful while I have time.

Also, this just occurred to me, so I haven't done any studying on it, but some of the language may also be referring to the resurrection, which did happen immediately, while some would be talking about the "proper" second coming.  As in all prophetic writings/oracles, the time scale in view is always a difficult thing to pick out.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Dehler, Bernie> wrote:

Here's a question I have.

In the NT, it is obvious that the disciples thought Jesus would return at any time and that the end was near.  For example, that's why in Acts it says the believers had everything in common- sold what they had and shared everything.  We would too if we seriously thought Christ would return tomorrow, but we don't really believe it.  So we keep our own money- our retirement and college plans for our kids.  We don't believe in the imminent return of Christ like the first believers did, as evidenced by our behavior.

Here's my question: Was Jesus wrong when He taught about the immediate return?  How do we explain his slowness in coming, when they all thought it would have happened almost 2,000 years ago?  And since it has been so long already, what's the big deal if Jesus waits another 2,000 years?  I know that's inconceivable to most evangelical Christians, just like if you told a Christian in 100AD that Christ still did not return by 2000AD.

No need to post scripture about "scoffers who say Christ isn't going to return."  That isn't the question.  The question is how to you resolve the fact that Christ clearly taught, and His disciples clearly believed, in the imminent return, which didn't happen yet?  There was no imminent return.  If Christ returns today, it was not imminent.

It is a genuine problem that I have and am pondering, as a believer.




David W. Opderbeck
Associate Professor of Law

Gibbons of , Science & Technology

To unsubscribe, send a message to with "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message. Received on Thu Oct 16 13:59:52 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 16 2008 - 13:59:52 EDT