Archive for timing texts
Old Testament Timing-Texts
Contrary to Preterist belief, the Old Testament contains many statements which represent an event as “near at hand,” or scheduled to take place “soon.” Parallel New Testament statements would convince many that, when the words were spoken or written, guaranteed fulfillment was right around the corner. However, a careful look at the Old Testament concept of prophetic imminence leads us to believe that God often postpones events which He predicts must take place shortly (see, e.g., Genesis 2: 17; cf. 5: 5; 1 Kings 21: 27-29; 2 Kings 20: 1-6; Jeremiah 18: 7-10; Jonah 3: 4; cf. 3: 10).
The principle holds good especially when unconditional promises related to the Abrahamic covenant are offered during a ”probationary period” associated with the conditional (two-sided) Mosaic covenant. When such is the case, all offers become contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions contained in the subsidiary covenant.
Keeping in mind that in God’s concept of time, a day is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3: 8), all timing texts will be seen to work according to a principle which we laid down several months ago, and which we summed up as follows: “By way of authority, all imminency-texts are referable to God’s standard of time. By way of application, they may refer to any epoch of human history; albeit, removal of the application can never nullify the authority.”
To help Christians in their studies, we are now providing a list of every timing text in the Old Testament. These texts have been gathered through repeated readings of the Old Testament, and not by any other source. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time all these texts have been brought together under one head.
We send forth this offering with the hopes that our endeavors may be of value to others. To further assist the reader, each passage has been dated according to the chronological system of Dr. E.W. Bullinger, further details of which may be found in Appendix 50 of the “Companion Bible.”
*********
(Deut. 32: 35) ”To me belongeth vengeance and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.” [B.C. 1452].
(Psalm 37: 1) “Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.” [c. B.C. 950].
(Psalm 37: 10) “For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be. Yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.” [c. B.C. 950].
(Isaiah 10: 25) “For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.” [B.C. 631-630].
(Isaiah 13: 5) “Howl, ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.” [B.C. 649-588].
(Isaiah 29: 17) “Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?“ [B.C. 649-588].
(Isaiah 46: 13) “I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.” [B.C. 649-588].
(Isaiah 56: 1) “Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.” [B.C. 603-588].
(Jeremiah 48: 16) “The calamity of Moab is near to come, and his affliction hasteth fast.” [B.C. 496].
(Jeremiah 51: 3) “For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel; The daughter of Babylon is like a threshingfloor, it is time to thresh her: yet a little while, and the time of her harvest shall come.” [c. B.C. 496].
(Lamentations 4: 18) “They hunt our steps, that we cannot go in our streets: our end is near, our days are fulfilled: for our end is come.” [c. B.C. 477].
(Ezekiel 7: 12) “The time is come, the day draweth near: let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn: for wrath is upon all the multitude thereof.” [B.C. 484].
(Ezekiel 30: 3) “For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.” [B.C. 479].
(Ezekiel 36: 8] “But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to My people of Israel; for they are at hand to come.” [B.C. 477].
(Hosea 1: 4) “And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.” [B.C. 489-411].
(Joel 1: 15) “Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.” [B.C. 489-411].
(Joel 2: 1) “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is night at hand.” [B.C. 488-477].
(Joel 3: 14) “Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.” [B.C. 488-477].
(Obadiah 15) “For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.” [B.C. 482 or 472].
(Zephaniah 1: 7) “Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord God: for the day of the Lord is at hand: for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, He hath bid His guests.” [B.C. 518].
(Zephaniah 1: 14) “The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.” [B.C. 518].
(Haggai 2: 6) “For thus saith the Lord of Hosts; yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land.” [B.C. 410].
Christ’s First-Century Return Was Conditional
Preterists often make the mistake of viewing the imminent first-century return of Christ as unconditional in nature. Not only is such a view false, however, but it ignores and overlooks the nature of the covenants which were made with Abraham and Moses.
My position is that the blessings connected with Jesus Christ’s return belong to the unconditional Abrahamic covenant, and not to the conditional Mosaic covenant. [Note: I have already outlined what I believe in the article, "Why Christ Didn't Return In A.D. 70"].
It is true, though, that the Abrahamic blessings were held out under the Mosaic covenant. But because the Mosaic covenant was conditional, attainment of the promises under that covenant was also conditional. This is a key principle which must be kept in mind. If during the 40 years of probation following the ascension of Christ, the offer of Abrahamic blessings was made, they were contingent so long as the Mosaic covenant remained in force.
The New Testament stresses this contingent factor, when Christ addressed the Jewish nation, saying: “Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23: 39). In other words, the Jews would not see the return of Christ in glory, and the consequent setting up of the kingdom, until they met the condition of national repentance. This national repentance would trigger the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Whereas if they refused, and chose to remain under the Mosaic covenant, they would fail to receive the promised blessings. History tells us that is just what happened.
Contrary to Preterist assertions, the time-texts made during the 40-year period of probation were all conditional on national repentance. Christ would return soon, if only His people would repent. During this probationary period, Christ’s return was imminent. When the forty years expired, however, the city was destroyed, the nation dispersed, and Christ’s second coming was no longer imminent. Because the nation refused to heed the apostolic admonition to repent, the parousia (to which is connected the fulfillment of Old Testament promises and blessings) never materialized.
That does not mean, of course, that it will never have a fulfillment. Because the parousia (i.e. The Hope of Israel) belongs to the covenant made to Abraham, it is unconditional. The only difference between its fulfillment under that covenant and the Mosaic covenant, is that in the former case there is no specified time-frame during which it must take place; whereas in the latter, it would take place within a forty year window of time — provisionally, of course.
The “everlasting covenant” was made with Abraham (Genesis 17: 7), and not with Moses. Therefore, the fulfillment of the everlasting covenant will take place irrespective of whether or not the Mosaic covenant remains in force. The Mosaic covenant is entirely subservient to the covenant previously made with Abraham. (On this principle, see Galatians 3: 15-20).
The forty-year period of probation following the ascension of Christ, and closing with the destruction of Jerusalem, was not to make good the promise of Christ’s parousia, but merely to make it possible.
We must keep in mind that Jesus Christ was “a minister of the circumcision, for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the Fathers” (Romans 15: 8). That means he came to confirm the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. It was necessary, therefore, that all the original blessings be held out, as also those contained in the law of Moses. In Levitus 26: 11, it was written that God would place His tabernacle among His people Israel — on condition on national obedience (see context, v. 1-10).
Christ’s dwelling among His people is a promise made unconditionally. However, under the force of the Mosaic covenant, the promise becomes conditional. It is not until the Mosaic covenant is removed that the contingent element disappears.
Now, if Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers, then He came to confirm the provisions of the Mosaic law. Those who heard Him (the apostles) confirmed what “began to be spoken” by the Lord, with signs and miracles following (Hebrews 2: 3-4). Wherefore Peter, on the heels of his Pentecostal discourse, stressed again the conditional nature of Christ’s parousia, the ”times of refreshing” that would come from the presence of the Lord (Acts 3: 19-21). He was only repeating what Christ had already affirmed in Matthew 23: 39.
Because the time-texts which Preterists use to support a first-century return of Christ were all written during a period when the Mosaic covenant was still in force, and after the essential condition of national repentance had been laid down, the imminency of Christ’s parousia is to be seen as conditional in nature. There is no other way to interpret these verses, without upsetting the plain and literal sense of hundreds of Old Testament and New Testament prophetic texts. But this is just what many do.
It is suggested, however, that Preterists and non-Preterists alike carefully examine the terms and conditions of both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Then they must determine whether or not a particular text or set of texts relates to one or the other. This would help clear way much confusion regarding the doctrines of Preterism, relative to issues of whether (or not) Christ “returned” in A.D. 70.
Again, I emphatically affirm that the parousia, and those blessings connected therewith, is entirely unconditional. Therefore its fulfillment awaits God’s own good pleasure. I am saying, however, that when this unconditional promise is placed in the context of a conditional covenant, it partakes of the contingent nature of the covenant then in effect. And since the Mosaic covenant was in effect from A.D. 30-70, the imminent first century coming of Christ was purely conditional in nature.
What Imminency Entails
In past articles, I’ve dealt extensively with the so-called “timing texts” often adduced by Hyper-Preterists in support of their view that Jesus Christ returned in A.D. 70. I want to make clear my position on the doctrine of imminency. It is no act of surrender to say that when God said that something was “near,” or “at hand,” then it was truly imminent!
However, there are two foundational issues which Preterists miss when correctly viewing the concept of timing. Firstly, they fail to examine from whose perspective the consummation was imminent. Secondly, they do not recognize, as an important exegetical principle, that phrases like “soon,” “near,” and “at hand” cannot be converted to past fulfillment without changing the meaning of the terms employed. All too often, the Preterist jumps to a conclusion which is not directly warranted by the text, and ends up substituting his authority for that of the inspired Word.
Failure to recognize that in many instances, imminency involves God’s plan and purpose, and not man’s perception of things, prevents a correct analysis of the timing elements found in the New Testament. If this imminency relates to the temporal sphere alone, then it is reasonable (in many cases) to say that something might have already happened. But the words delivered to the apostles of the Lamb are the words of God. They represent God’s thoughts, rather than man’s (2 Peter 1: 21).
Of course, it is safe to say, that in a good majority of cases, imminency does pertain to the temporal realm. There was certainly a sense in which were things were rapidly nearing their consummation in the first century (Romans 13: 11; 1 Cor. 10: 11).
But to claim, in light of this imminency, that the events are now behind us, strikes me as an unwarranted trifling with Scripture. After all, Preterists act like the only way out of the difficulty is to say that something already happened. But is this the only theological solution? An in-depth study of these issues has assured me there are other options more in keeping with consistent exposition of the Word.
The main trouble with the Preterist interpretation is that it employs an exegetical double-standard. It takes phrases such as “soon,” “near” and “at hand,” in a pseudo-literal sense, and after converting these statements to past fulfillment, proceeds to spiritualize and/or change the meaning of large portions of Scripture. This is a form of a priori logic, in which the conclusions are “prior” to the gathering of the evidence. Obviously, such a method is not in keeping with the laws of exegesis. If there can be found a more reasonable method which relies on uniform principles of interpretation, will we accept it?
When the consensus is taken in, it is clear that a consistent literal approach does away with the problems created by the Preterist point of view. Such a method allows us to take the timing statements in a literal sense, while also keeping the plain and natural meaning of the governing referent before us. This method will lead to one or two results. It will either force us to deny the validity of the Bible; or it will lead us to adopt an Apotelesmatic system of interpretation.
The Apotelesmatic view holds that consummation of the eschaton was indeed imminent during the first century. However, its fulfillment was subsequently postponed. Rather than relying on random conclusions, the Apostlesmatic approach finds evidence that the first-century coming of Christ was dependent on Jewish national repentance (Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21). Because the Jews did not repent, their city was destroyed, and the second coming relegated to a future time.
Such a conclusion is easy to understand, and solves the difficulties created by the imminency factor. It is also highly commended, inasmuch as it honors the authority of the New Testament canon, and sees that the teachings contained therein are as fully applicable today as they were in the first century.
This method departs radically from the Preterist interpretation, which often leaves one wondering whether the great majority of the Word of God is now out of date. The danger of such a view is that spurious replacement Gospels may be substituted for the “one faith” that Jesus Christ and His hand-picked apostles laid down in the New Testament. In the end, the interpreter is found in possession of more objective truth than the New Testament itself. However, the Apotelesmatic approach obviates this concern, affirming the currency of the canon, as well as the revealed teachings of the Bible — plus nothing, minus nothing.
In past months, I’ve written a number of articles dealing with the Apotelesmatic system of interpretation. These articles can be found by clicking here. The particular method of interpretation I employ is not new at all, but was systematized by E.W. Bullinger in his 1911 work The Foundations of Dispensational Truth. While I would disagree with many of Dr. Bullinger’s conclusions, I believe that his leading principles of interpretation are accurate; at least they are systematic, and show a marked adavancement over the Preterist method.
If anyone should have questions concerning issues of timing, audience relevence, and other concepts upon which doctrines of Preterism are built, they may contact me personally at bsimmons@basicisp.net. As always, let us be honest in our investigations, and Berean in our approach.
Harry Meyers– Exposition of New Testament Time-Texts (Audio Sermon)
(1973)
“Now let’s go back over to 1 Thess. 4: 16-17. Paul said that he expected to be alive. Paul said that he expected to be alive when Christ came back. That would mean that Paul would need no resurrection. If Paul was alive when Christ came back he wouldn’t need a resurrection. But when I read Philippians 3: 11, Paul was trying to attain to a resurrection. He was trying to attain to a resurrection! So that meant there had been a change in the plan and the purpose of God. Paul, when he wrote Philippians, chapter 1, verse 23, he realized that he could die there. So Paul was in need of a resurrection. And now he’s wanting to attain to the resurrection. Because he knew that the time of the second coming of Christ had been postponed.
“Now what happened? God had prophesied in the Old Testament certain events. And these events were put down in order. What about the second coming? What about the kingdom? What about the beast? What about Matthew 24? What about all the prophecies that Christ had spoken about? What about that period time? What did God do? This illustration may be a crude illustration. But this is what I think God did. The time that He had prophesied about, in Acts 28 He cuts it off.
“What is He going to do with that time? It’s held in the hand of God. It’s in abeyance until a future day. So that means that there’s a gap in prophecy.
“What did God fill that gap with, after He cut off prophetic time? Let us turn to Ephesians chapter 3. You know God had something hidden in His heart. It must have been glorious to be hid in the heart of God. God surprised principalities and powers; He surprised the human race; He surprised the nation of Israel. It was hid in the heart of God.
“Paul says here in verse 8: “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, Who created all things by Jesus Christ.” God hid this mystery in His heart. And He filled this gap in prophecy with this mystery.”
http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/TFT%2025th%20Anniversary%20Part%201.mp3
Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.- On The Early Date of Revelation
(from The Foundations of Dispensational Truth, 1911)
We declare here for the earlier date on the authority of the Syriac version, which was quoted by Melito of Sardis as early as A.D. 170, and is thus older than any other authority and much older than any Greek manuscript extant. Now, as to the Syriac (Peshitto) version, this great fact stands clearly out; that notwithstanding the grievous and hostile divisions of the Syrian communions, yet all the manuscripts of that version “exhibit a text in every important respect the same” though used by all these rival churches.
The heading (in the Syriac version) reads:
”The Revelation which was made by God to John the Evangelist in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor.” This would give the date as during his reign, which was from A.D. 54-68.
Irenaeus [about A.D. 178] speaks of John “who saw the Revelation. For it is not long since he (or it) was seen, but almost within our own generation about the end of Domitian’s reign.” The last sentence is ambiguous, and probably means that John was seen, for this sense is required by the context, which treats not of authorship or dates, but of why the name of antichrist is not mentioned.
As those who favor the later date for the Apocalypse, follow Irenaeus, their testimony is not independent, and therefore has no weight. The later date would be the period of Domitian’s reign which was from A.D. 81-96, i.e., after the destruction of Jerusalem. The importance of this point will be immediately seen; for in Nero’s reign (the earlier date) Jerusalem and the temple were still standing, and are both spoken of as such in Rev. 11: 1, 2, 8.
But the real evidence as to the date, is in the book itself. In ch. 1: 1 it is distinctly stated that the book of “Revelation” was given “to show unto His servants things that must shortly come to pass.”
In ch. 1: 3, “Blessed is he that readeth… for the time is near.”
In ch. 3: 10, “the time of trial is about to come.”
In ch. 3: 11, “Behold, I come quickly.”
In ch. 16: 15, “Behold, I come like a thief.”
Three times in the last chapter we have, “Behold, I come quickly,” viz., in 22: 7, 12, and 20.
**********
Then, all was imminent; now, all that they wrote about is in abeyance. Then, the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers was very near; since then it has been remote. This is the only true and real sense which we can make of that apocalypse coming “shortly” and “quickly” (Rev. 1: 1, 3). Many believers are perplexed at such expressions as these. They cannot understand how John was told to say that the things he was to write about “must shortly come to pass” (Rev. 1: 1). They fail to see that it was perfectly true; for John wrote immediately before the end of that Dispensation which he calls “the last hour.”
**********
Now with regard to the Apocalypse: who of us has not been perpexed with the opening statement that John was to write concerning “things which must SHORTLY come to pass?” In verse 3, it is added, “the time (or season) is near.” There must have been a true and literal sense in which these words were to be understood.
Though He, Who sees the end from the beginning knew that Peter’s offer in Acts 3: 19-26 would be rejected, yet He must not, writing by His servant John, assume that that would be the case. John must be instructed to write what would be understood; and he wrote to the assemblies as directed.
In the assured belief that God was not mocking His people in promising to send Jesus Christ on their repentance, no hint of any kind must be given as to the Divine foreknowledge of the end. The freewill of the people must not be forestalled. Full responsibility must be left with the nation during the whole of that Dispensation, up to the last memorable whole-day conference in Rome (Acts 28: 23-29).
We may be certain that Paul left nothing unsaid on that solemn occasion, and left no argument unused, when, “from morning until evening,” he “expounded and fully testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets.”
The apostle John could do no less. The sending of the Lord Jesus Christ, as promised in Acts 3: 19-26, involved the fulfillment of “all the events which were to come with the revelation and unveling of Jesus Christ,” and included the “restoration of all things which had been foretold by all the prophets.”
Hence it could be said, in a very real sense, in which it cannot now be said, that the “revelation” of Jesus Christ must “shortly come to pass.” The “must,” of course, refers to the certainty of the promise, not to the uncertainty of Israel’s decision. From the Divine point of view, “must” was the only correct word to be used. It is not repeated at the end of the book, but three times in the last chapter we have “Behold (or surely) I come quickly” (verses 7, 12, 20); and once, “the time is at hand” (verse 10) or near (as in ch. 1: 3).
There was a true and real sense in which the Revelation or Apocalypse could then be spoken of as “near;” and it must have come with greater weight at that time than it can come to believers of the present day. That is to say, it cannot now be spoken of near in the same sense as it was spoken of then.
**********
Our readers will perceive that we are not only giving coherence to other passages which are the cause of so many difficulties of interpretation; but are being provided with a powerful argument against the teachings of the vast majority who hold that the Lord did come at the destruction of Jerusalem. Among the standard commentators, there are many who hold or uphold that view.
Stuart Allen– The Second Coming Dependent On Israel’s Repentance (Short Audio)
“Here, then, is nothing less than a promise of the Second Advent of Christ– possibly taking place at that time. We know it did not take place. But it could have taken place, if Israel had obeyed that command [to repent].
“Unless you are going to say to me, “Well, God was only play-acting; He didn’t really mean it” — people, you know, even Christian people, talk like that sometimes. But I couldn’t possibly accept that. God doesn’t trifle like that. He means everything that He says.
“This was perfectly true, because practically every epistle stresses the fact of the Lord’s early return.”
“The Time Is Short”
One of the many “timing texts” which Hyper-Preterists employ is Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 7: 29 that “the time is short.” H.P.’s apparently believe that this points to the destruction of Jerusalem. But as with other timing texts, this is one is wrenched completely from its chronological and historical bearings, and placed in a false context. As we’ll see, this text has nothing to do with A.D. 70, but supports the Apotelesmatic Interpretation of Christ’s second coming.
I am pushing this issue for all it’s worth, because for the very first time in the history of the Hyper-Preterist movement, orthodox Christians have a real answer regarding all of the timing-texts. In my studies of Hyper-Preterist material, I have seen several lists of such texts put forth, but never once have I seen them chronologically and systematically arranged according to the historical events of the Acts period. Had this been done, the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the Hyper-Preterist view would immediately become apparent.
To understand what Paul meant, let us give a brief overview of the conditions then current. The first epistle to the Corinthians was written in Spring of A.D. 57, during Paul’s two-year stay in Ephesus (see Acts 19: 10). This was his second visit to the city, his first taking place after his departure from Achaia, where he established the Corinthian church and taught there for eighteen months (Acts 18: 11). Between Paul’s first and second visit to Ephesus, while he was away in Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the disciples (Acts 18: 23), Apollos came to Ephesus. After first being instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, he passed into Corinth where he ministered to the church, and “mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18: 28).
When Paul came to Ephesus the second time, he stayed there for two years, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. It was during his stay here that he received a letter from the Corinthian church asking advice on some pressing issues, one of them being marriage. But the church did not make known to him the divisions and disruptions that were already occurring among them. The spiritual state of affairs of the Corinthian church was made to known to Paul by visitors from Achaia (1 Cor. 1: 11; 5: 1; 11: 18). Hence, when Paul penned his first epistle to the Corinthians, he not only reproved them concerning their various departures from sound orthodoxy, but also addressed their concerns regarding marriage. Should they marry, or shouldn’t they?
Paul responded by saying it was better to abide even as himself, and remain unmarried. For there was tribulation in the offing, and the “time was short” (1 Cor. 7: 28-29). But what kind of tribulation was Paul talking about? We agree with Preterists that it must have been the Great Tribulation. However, a bit of reflection will tell us that it could have nothing to with events that were (according to Preterists) ten years away. It was an IMMINENT CRISIS Paul was speaking of. It was something that could occur any month, any week, any day. And we know exactly how that crisis would have been brought about. For the Gospel was still being offered to the “Jew first,” and receiving much opposition (See Acts 18: 6-7; 19: 8). It was yet uncertain whether the nation would receive it.
In order for the Lord of the Harvest to send His Son, 144,000 saved Israelites were needed as a first-fruits offering to God (see Rev. 14: 1-4). Had this number been met, the events denoted by Christ as the “beginnings of sorrows” (Matt. 24: 7-8; Revelation 6: 1-8) would have taken place, and all things have rushed to a glorious consummation. Michael would have stood up for the children of Israel, and Satan been ejected from the heavenlies (Dan. 12: 1; Rev. 12: 7-9). This would have triggered the period known as the “Great Tribulation,” after which Israel would have been saved, at Jesus Christ’s return from heaven. Of course, we now know that the required first-fruits number was never filled up. However, until Israel formally rejected the kingdom in A.D. 63, the coming of Christ was still imminent. In other words, it was still possible.
The above facts provide the perfect backdrop for Paul’s statement that “the time was short.” The Corinthian Christians, like their brethren in Thessalonica, were waiting for the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor. 1: 7; 1 Thess. 1: 10). This was not something that would take place thirteen years later, but which might happen very soon! However, it was all dependent upon Israel’s acceptance of the Gospel. There was Christ’s emphatic statement that the nation would not see Him again until they repented (Matt. 23: 39). The original purpose of the preaching of the Gospel was to bring this national repentance about.
As proof that our position is correct, we remind the reader that during this period the baptism of John was still being administered (Acts 18: 25; 19: 3). Why? Because in order for the Day of the Lord to come, Elijah had to first appear as a herald to “turn heart of the fathers to the children, and and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 4: 5).
But, you say, Elijah already did come in the person of John the Baptist. Therefore, the Day of the Lord had to happen in the first century. No it didn’t! Because the one condition necessary for John’s the Baptist’s fulfillment of that role was never met. The condition was that Israel receive him. “And IF YE WILL RECEIVE it, this is Elias, who was for to come” (Matt. 11: 14). Because Israel had not yet received John the Baptist as Elijah (cf. Matt. 17: 12), his baptism was still being administered! This lends strong support to our view that the required first-fruits number was still lacking when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. These saved Israelites were being added every day (cf. James 1: 18). But they were just as quickly falling away!
Nevertheless, in A.D. 57 things were not entirely hopeless. The contention between Paul and the Jews had not yet reached a crisis; though during this period Paul must have felt some anxiety concerning his impending visit to Jerusalem (Acts 18: 21; 19: 21). For this was to be the decisive factor that would settle whether or not Israel was ready to accept or reject Peter’s admonition to repent (Acts 3: 19-21).
If they had repented, the events of the Apocalypse would have begun, and Jesus Christ have returned at the close of the 70 weeks. But since they rejected the Gospel, Paul pronounced upon them the sentence of judicial blindness (Acts 28: 26-27), and further progression toward the sunteleia was halted. It was then that the present Dispensation began, and God’s eternal purpose revealed for the very first time in the prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians). These things could not be made known until the Gospel had been rejected by Israel.
After A.D. 63 there is a conspicuous absence of so-called “timing texts” in the epistles of Paul. Since Israel rejected the Gospel in Acts 28, the offer an an imminent parousia was necessarily withdrawn. It was then that Paul unfolded the doctrines of grace, later giving instructions for orderly church government. No longer were Christians waiting for an “any-moment” tribulation and Apocalypse, but they had a new and better hope held out to them, consisting of an ”ex-anastasis” and “calling on high“ (Phil. 3: 11, 14). This is our hope today.
Interestingly, in the later prison epistles, written in A.D. 67-68, there is a total absence of any indication that the “Great Tribulation” was impending over the church. And yet when Paul wrote to Timothy, Jerusalem was under siege! If Paul had thought that Christ’s coming and the investment of Jerusalem were inseparably connected, then why would he pass this over? Rather, he wishes Christians to live a “peaceable and quiet life” (1 Tim. 2: 2), and advises that the younger women “marry and bear children” (1 Tim. 5: 14). Surely these are not the statements of one who thought that an eschatological crisis was at hand!
As the reader will see, we are soundly thrashing the doctrines of Hyper-Preterism. Even the most hardened proponents of the system will have to grudgingly admit that we are bringing some powerful arguments to bear against the concept of an A.D. 70 parousia. Only date the various time-texts and place them in their true historical and chronological settings, and Hyper-Preterism will quickly crumble. As a theology that depends upon sweeping generalities, any attention to details must prove fatal. Paul’s admonition that “the time is short” is but one example of a hundred which can be adduced to show that Hyper-Preterism is a fraudulent system, and one that will not bear a critical examination of the evidence.
