Some Thoughts On The Imminency Texts

As was pointed out at the beginning of this series, the rationale for the RE position is the desire to take seriously the Biblical texts that speak of Jesus’ coming as “near” or “soon.” Since the Word of God never lies nor is mistaken (and who would deny this?), then all such texts must have been fulfilled within a short time after they were written, the argument goes. At stake, then, is the trustworthiness of God’s Word. Since some of the “imminent return” passages refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, REs contend that all references and events related to the Lord’s second coming were fulfilled at that time. However, such a contention is untrue and reflects the REs’s pushing of the spiritualization of prophecy to an extreme. Denying, as they do, the visible aspects of the Lord’s Second/Final Coming, including Christ’s own actual presence, the accompanying angels, and the resurrected and transformed bodies of the saints, it should be clear to most non-REs that REs’ beliefs about such things simply cannot be squared with what the Bible actually says.

It was B.B. Warfield who said “the chief dangers to Christianity do not come from the anti-Christian systems....It is corrupt forms of Christianity itself which menace from time to time the life of Christianity.” ¹ This is precisely the case with RE. More than a few of its modern-day proponents are those who claim to be New Testament Christians. Although the doctrine is rejected out of hand by many Christians as totally unscriptural and absolutely bizarre, it continues to gain favor among some, especially those who have struggled with “imminency texts.” As I previously said, I truly respect them for their desire to deal with these texts, realizing, as they do, that the very integrity of Scripture is at stake.

Thus, in the section that follows we’ll be dealing with the Bible passages REs use to “prove” that the Lord’s Second/Final Coming, with all its attendant events, occurred in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This means the question we’ll be dealing with is this: Does the New Testament teach that the Second/Final Coming of Christ was to take place during the first century? When answering such a question, it is important to understand that the eschatological time texts in the New Testament cannot be understood without consideration of the context in which they are found. In other words, a proper hermeneutic does not permit one to pluck passages from their context and then turn around and use such passages for the interpretive grid through which the remainder of Scripture is to be viewed. I referred to this earlier as “hammering with an RE hammer” and seeing everything, in turn, as an “RE nail.” With this said, let’s begin our examination of the REs’ passages.

RE Prooftexts

The following list of thirteen prooftexts was given to me by a brother in Christ who espouses RE. It appears below as he presented it to me, with only some slight punctuation differences:

1. “Not gone over the cities” (Matt. 10:23).
   
   
2. “Some shall not taste death” (Matt. 16:27-28).
   
   
3. “This generation shall not pass” (Matt. 24:34).
   
   
4. “These be the days of vengeance...all written...fulfilled” (Luke 21:22).
   
   
5. “Coming in cloud with power...redemption draweth nigh...kingdom of God is nigh at hand...This generation” (Luke 21:27-28, 31).
   
   
6. “If he tarry until I come” (John 21:22).
   
   
7. “Time is short” (1 Cor. 7:29).
   
   
8. “Exhort as you see the day approach” (Heb. 10:25).
   
   
9. “Very little while” (Heb. 10:37).
   
   
10. “Coming of the Lord draweth nigh” (James 5:8).
    
    
11. “End of all things is at hand” (1 Peter 4:7).
    
    
12. It is the last hour” (1 John 2:18).
    
    
13. “He shall appear to your joy and their shame” (Isaiah 66:5-6). This is AFTER the Jewish hatred of Christians.

Looking At The Context

I’ll deal with these passages in the order listed above.

1. “Not gone over the cities” (Matt. 10:23): In Matthew 10, Jesus is sending out His twelve disciples to bring the message of the coming kingdom to Israel. In the midst of a series of warnings about the persecutions in store for them, Jesus said, “But when they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.” The “you” in this verse clearly refers to the twelve disciples. It is also clear that Jesus is instructing them that something is going to happen before they finish doing what He has instructed them to do—namely, in a short period of time something is going to happen. And what is this? The Son of Man is going to come.
   
   There is a wide variety of interpretations of this passage, and I’ll not go into all of those here. Suffice it to say, REs believe this is a reference to the Lord coming in judgment against the commonwealth of Israel in A.D. 70. This is a possibility. But even if this is what the Lord is referring to, I see no reason to think this must be referring to the Lord’s Second/Final Coming, as the REs claim. Fact is, REs’ mistake is thinking practically every reference to the Lord’s “coming” is a specific reference to His Second/Final Coming. But I believe there is a better explanation. It is true that the expression “coming” is frequently used of divine judgment, as we’ll see when dealing with the next two passages. But I believe a better way of viewing this particular “coming” is to see it as the Lord’s coming to establish His kingdom. I like the way Tac Chumbley put it in his commentary on Matthew:

   Though the idea of judgment has been introduced in v 15, it seems more likely that the reference here is to Christ’s coming to establish His kingdom. Note that this coming would follow hard on the heels (“gone over,” teleo, end, finish, completion) of the apostles’ mission to the Jews. During this campaign they were to preach the imminence of the kingdom (v 7)—i.e., the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (16:28). Since this event was nearing, it was essential that the Twelve complete their work of announcing the [coming] kingdom to the Jews. Therefore, if the disciples met resistance in one town they were to go to another, not as cowards, but as men on a mission. ²

   Consequently, the RE interpretation of this passage is not the only interpretation, nor is it the most reasonable. One thing that must always be kept in mind is that the Bible speaks of frequent “comings.” Not all of these, not even most, have to do with the Lord’s final coming at the end of time. Furthermore, one must keep in mind that there are “comings” in time, as well as a “coming” at the end of time. Without such an understanding, there can be no hope of properly interpreting Scripture.
   
   
2. “Some shall not taste death” (Matt. 16:27-28): This verse has been referred to as one of the most difficult in the whole book. This is because similar language—viz., the coming of the Son of Man—is used in successive instances to refer to two different things. Of course, the RE says this really isn’t difficult at all, as both instances actually refer to the same thing—namely, the Lord’s Second/Final Coming in A.D. 70. However, at least seven different events have been set forth as a possibility: 1) the transfiguration, 2) the resurrection and ascension, 3) Pentecost, 4) the spread of Christianity, 5) the internal development of the gospel, 6) the destruction of Jerusalem, and 7) the Second/Final Coming of the Lord in judgment at the end of time. Of these, the destruction of Jerusalem certainly has merit, so the REs’ interpretation of this passage, at least the time framework, might very well be correct. Even so, I believe there is a much better interpretation. But first let me explain why I believe the transfiguration must be definitely ruled out, for the implication of the Lord’s statement is that not all the apostles who stood with Him that day would be alive when this event occurred. A week later, at the transfiguration, Judas was still very much alive. Thus, the first viable possibility would be the Lord’s resurrection and ascension into Heaven tethered, then, to the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, for by this time Judas is dead. This is the interpretation I favor. After all, such seems to tie in nicely with Romans 1:4, which says that Jesus was “declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead.” This, in turn, comports wonderfully with Acts 2:25-36, which says:

   Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on His throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’” Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.

   The third possibility, which I advocated for years, is indeed viable, but because I now think it should be made a part of the “package” mentioned above, I’ll not say anymore about it. I don’t put much credence to 4 and 5. 7, of course, is totally out of the question, for all the apostles are already dead and that event, excluding the RE contention, has not yet occurred. However, when 7 is combined with 3, as REs do, then it is thought this is the only real valid interpretation. Because I believe I’ve demonstrated this is simply not the case, I see no good reason to accept the RE interpretation of this passage.
   
   
3. “This generation shall not pass” (Matt. 24:34): Matthew 24 is a notoriously difficult section of Scripture as it talks about two clearly distinct events: the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second/Final Coming. Consequently, I believe verse 35 is pivotal, with most everything coming before it being in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and most everything after having to do with the Lord's Second/Final Coming. With this said, I believe the clearest most straightforward reading of verse 34 tells us that the coming of the Son of Man mentioned in verses 29-31 is not in reference to the Lord’s Second Coming, but is, instead, His coming in judgment in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Therefore, REs and I interpret verse 34 the same. Thus, it is not their interpretation that I take issue with, It is, instead, their application. Thinking, as they do, that the destruction of Jerusalem was the “be all“ and “end all” of eschatology, they see this “coming” as the Lord’s Second/Final Coming at the end of time, something they believe took place in A.D. 70. However, such a view, when compared with other scriptures, is simply not tenable. Yes, I recognize the imagery used to depict the Lord’s coming in judgment against Jerusalem is suggestive of what we usually associate with the Lord’s final coming at the end of time, but such imagery is indicative of, and consistent with, apocalyptic literature representing God coming in judgment. There are those, other than REs, who disagree with my interpretation and application. These speak of something called “prophetic foreshortening,” a hermeneutical device that allows verses 29-31 to be referring to the Second/Final Coming of the Lord in the distant future. Although I am familiar with the principle of “prophetic foreshortening” or “telescoping,” as it is sometimes called, and recognize it as a legitimate hermeneutical tool, without the context of Matthew 24 giving me some kind of better clue, I simply don’t know how, with any integrity, to apply this principle to the text under discussion. There are even other ways verses 29-31 can be viewed, but I’ll not go into those here, even though I am prepared to do so, if that occasion should arise. Anyway, I believe I have demonstrated that verse 34 presents no compelling reason for me to believe the REs’ application of this passage is the correct one. Finally, their argument that their interpretation and application of verse 34 is necessary to preserve both the integrity of Jesus and the text itself just does not hold water.
   
   
4. “These be the days of vengeance...all written...fulfilled” (Luke 21:22): The full verse reads as follows: “For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” The context here, just like in the verse above, is Jesus’ Olivet discourse. The immediate context in the verse being considered is the Lord’s coming in judgment against the unbelieving Jews vis-à-vis the destruction of Jerusalem. According to REs, the “all things which are written” of this verse demonstrates conclusively that all Old and New Testament prophecy was to be fulfilled in the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem. But is this what Jesus said? Absolutely not! We get help in this by examining what the Lord said in Luke 18:31. There, He said to His disciples, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished.” Now, if REs were to apply the same RE “hammer” to this passage that they force on Luke 21:22, they would be forced to conclude that the “all things that are written” of this verse meant that the Second coming occurred when Jesus went up to Jerusalem with the disciples on this occasion. However, even REs don’t make this mistake when interpreting this passage. So, when Jesus referred to “all things which are written” in Luke 21:22 and “all things that are written” in Luke 18:31, He was referring to those things that had to do with the subject at hand, not all the Old Testament and New Testament prophesies, as the REs’ claim. Consequently, there is no compulsion in Luke 21:22 for the RE doctrine.
   
   
5. “Coming in cloud with power...redemption draweth nigh...kingdom of God is nigh at hand...This generation” (Luke 21:27-28, 31): Again, just as above, the destruction of Jerusalem is clearly under discussion. Therefore, although the language is indicative of that which is typically thought to be associated with the Lord’s Second/Final Coming at the end of time, the “redemption” mentioned here, just like the “gather[ing] together His elect” of Matthew 24:31 is in connection with the judgment of the commonwealth of Israel. I know many here see the language of end-time judgment, just as do the REs, and this has lead to all sorts of fanciful interpretations. However, I believe contextually (cf., v. 32 in Luke and v. 34 in Matthew), I must categorize the coming and redemption here as associated with the destruction of Jerusalem, not with the Lord’s Parousia.
   
   
6. “If he tarry until I come” (John 21:22): Here we see classical prooftexting in action on the part of RE. The word “come” is in the passage, therefore, according to them, this passage must be about the Lord’s Second/Final Coming at the end of time and its connection with the destruction of Jerusalem. But just what coming the Lord has in mind here, I cannot be sure. It may be His Parousia, but it might also be His coming into His kingdom at His resurrection/glorification/coming of His kingdom at Pentecost, or His coming in the destruction of Jerusalem. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that what the Lord had in mind was His coming in judgment against Jerusalem in A.D. 70, when John was still alive but Peter was dead. This would prove nothing but the point Jesus was trying to make and that was that His dealing with the apostle John was none of Peter’s business. Instead, it seems His disciples didn’t understand what Jesus was saying here and REs seem to not “get it” either, making this a prooftext for the Lord’s Second/Final Coming in connection with His judgment of the unbelieving Jews in those events associated with the destruction of Jerusalem, which is just pure speculation—namely, a reading into the passage something that is simply not there. But this is typical of the RE hermeneutic, hammering incessantly, as they do, with that RE hammer.
   
   
7. “Time is short” (1 Cor. 7:29): There are several passages like this in the New Testament epistles (see the ones that finish out this list). In trying to understand these texts, it is important to ask what end is in view in each of them. If the texts were written before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and I have every reason to believe all were (perhaps with the exception of 1 John), then there is the real possibility they could be referring to the coming end of the commonwealth of Israel in A.D. 70. At the same time, it could just as well be talking about their allotted time being short. That is, the shortness of human life—namely, the shortness of time we each have to prepare for eternity. I can use my own circumstances to illustrate this point, for I understand, from a health perspective, that I’m living on borrowed time, time the Lord has graciously bestowed upon me. Although this lesson has been made very real to me as a result of my brush with cancer and serious heart problems, the truth is that each one of us needs to understand the brevity (shortness) of this life. For those who have made peace with imminent death, the amount of time left is less in the forefront of their thinking than is the change in perspective. Consequently, the individual who has been redeemed spiritually must also learn to “redeem the time” (Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5). Actually, there are a variety of interpretations of this passage, but no matter which exegetical option one considers to be the most likely, there is absolutely no reason to believe it demands a RE interpretation, as the hyper-preterists claim. In my opinion, REs’ use of this passage is classic prooftexting (i.e., hammering with that ol’ RE hammer).
   
   
8. “Exhort as you see the day approach” (Heb. 10:25): It is believed this book was written around seven years before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Consequently, (1) the destruction of Jerusalem could be the “day” under discussion here. The “signs” of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple had been given by the Lord in Matthew 24, and the people of that day would, no doubt, begin to see storm clouds developing. (2) There are those who think the approaching “day” might be the Second/Final Coming of the Lord at the end of time. I personally don’t think so. (3) There are yet others who believe the “day” approaching is the Lord’s Day (Sunday, the first day of the week). This is the day the early church regularly assembled to do those things they had been instructed to do on this day. Each week, as the day of this sacred assembly drew near, they were to encourage one another to be present. Of the three possibilities I’ve mentioned, I totally rule out number two. Number one is a possibility, of course, but I personally prefer number three, although it is the one most rejected by the commentators. Nevertheless, nowhere in these various interpretations is there any room for the RE view. Therefore, this is just another RE nail in the hands of those hammering with their RE hammer (i.e., it’s just another of their prooftexts).
   
   
9. “Very little while” (Heb. 10:37): This passage, which says, “For yet a little while, and He who is coming will come and will not tarry,” as it sits there unexamined, presents a distinct possibility for an RE interpretation. Therefore, let’s find out a few things about the Old Testament references found in this passage before we try to decide just what is being referred to here. From what Old Testament passages are these words taken? Well, verse 37a appears to come from Isaiah 26:20, while verse 37b, along with verse 38, comes from Habakkuk 2:2-4. In Isaiah 26:20, in what is considered to be a specific reference to the Second Advent of Jesus, the expression referenced is translated “for a little moment.” Now, whether this Second Advent took place at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, as REs claim, or is something we are still waiting for today, as most think, the question the REs need to ask themselves is this: If, in Isaiah’s time, which was in the eight century B.C., the distance between the people of that day and the Lord’s Second/Final Coming in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was described as “a little moment,” then how is the use of this same expression in Hebrews 10:37 a valid argument that the One who is coming is going to be doing so very shortly, like within the seven years between when Peter wrote this letter and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70? Consequently, when REs try to make this passage apply to the Lord’s coming in judgment against the unbelieving Jews vis-à-vis the destruction of Jerusalem in just seven years hence, they have hoisted themselves, or so it seems to me, on their own petard.
   
   Many do think the Lord’s coming in connection with the approaching destruction of Jerusalem is what’s under discussion in this passage, and it may be. Nevertheless, I lean toward the yet to have taken place Second/Final Coming of the Lord at the end of time as being the actual subject of this verse. Thus, I see the expressions “for a little moment” and “will not delay” as indicative of the “sureness” of His Second Advent and not that it was right around the corner. If this is true, then those to whom Peter wrote (and us, by extension) needed to be willing to hunker down and wait on the Lord no matter the turmoil going on all around them. Although the Messiah’s Second Advent was still many years in the future, the faithful of Isaiah’s day, with the very same language Peter would here use in his day, were being told to hunker down and patiently wait on the Lord. I see no problem, then, in attributing this reference to the Second/Final Coming of Jesus at the end of time. However, even when one is convinced that this verse references the Lord’s coming in judgment against Jerusalem in A.D. 70, there is nothing here that demands an RE interpretation.
   
   
10. “Coming of the Lord draweth nigh” (James 5:8): This epistle was probably written in A.D. 62. This was a few years before the start of the First Jewish-Roman War (A.D. 66-73). This scripture, I believe, is referring to the Lord’s coming destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the commonwealth of Israel. At the same time, I see no room here for the RE doctrine, which must be read into the passage and then using it, in turn, as a prooftext for their false system.
    
    
11. “End of all things is at hand” (1 Peter 4:7): What we have here is yet another passage that may very well be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70—an interpretation which, on its own, does not lend any credence to RE. It is only after REs read into this passage their own think-sos that it begins to look anything like their doctrine. According to them, the “all things” of this passage means every prophetic utterance that was ever made in the Old Testament and New Testament. In other words, they claim there is not a single, solitary prophetic utterance that, ever since A.D. 70, has not already been fulfilled. However, there is nothing in the text, or its context, that demands this view. If the “end” under discussion is the destruction of Jerusalem and the commonwealth of Israel in A.D. 70, and I think it probably is, then “the all things” that are “at hand” are the things that refer to those events. To read into this the Second/Final Coming of the Lord and all those attendant things associated with it is simply not warranted. There are, of course, other interpretations of this passage, but this is sufficient to demonstrate there is nothing inherent in this verse that supports an RE interpretation. Instead, their downfall is their use of an RE hammer, thinking everything, in turn, looks like an RE nail.
    
    
12. “It is the last hour” (1 John 2:18): Several texts in Acts and the various epistles speak of “the last days,” “the last times,” or “the last hour.” Some of these are written in the present tense. That is, those writing considered themselves to have already been in “the last days” (cf. Acts 2:17; Heb. 1:2; 1 Pet. 1:20; 1 Jn. 2:18, the very verse under consideration). Hebrews 1:1-2, a very familiar passage, reads: “God who at various times and in different ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.” Then, in Acts 2:17, Peter declares that his own generation is, in fact, experiencing “the last days” foreseen by the prophet Joel, in Joel 2:28-32 (cf., Isa. 2:2-3; Jeremiah 31:31, as well). So, in some sense, “the last days,” “the last times,” and in the case of 1 John 2:18, “the last hour” were things which were already being experienced since the Lord’s First Advent. At the same time, however, there are other passages that appear to refer to “the last days” as something yet future. For example, Paul tells Timothy that “in the last days perilous times will come” (2 Tim. 3:1). In 1 Timothy 4:1, the Scriptures say, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.” Peter warns “that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts” (2 Pet. 3:3). The inference in such passages is that the last days referred to are still future. So, at the time these passages were written, there is a sense in which the last days have already arrived, and a sense in which they are yet in the future. However, REs see every such reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. There is no reason for them to do so other than their RE doctrine.
    
    In my opinion, this passage addresses the persecution the saints would experience from the anti-Christ at the hands of the Roman Empire when it fell under the control of Satan. With this in mind, and after everything is said and done, perhaps all that John meant by the “last hour” expression in this verse was that the saints of his time were living in a perilous and decisive time.
    
    
13. “He shall appear to your joy and their shame” (Isaiah 66:5-6). This is AFTER the Jewish hatred of Christians: In my opinion, this is a reference to Jesus’ coming in judgment against the unbelieving Jews in A.D. 70. However, for the REs to make this passage say what they want to make it say, they must read into it the Lord’s Second/Final Coming with all the accompanying events associated with it—i.e., they’re just hammering with their RE hammer, thinking everything like this an RE nail.

So, although REs think these passages compelling, I see nothing in them that demands an RE interpretation. In the next article we’ll explore this doctrine a bit further.

---

Notes

¹  Benjamin A. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield—II, ed. John E. Meeter, 1973, pp. 665-66.

²  Kenneth L. Chumbley, The Gospel of Matthew, 1999, p. 196.