“The Time Is Short”

   One of the many “timing texts” which Preterists employ is Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 7: 29 that “the time is short.” Preterists 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 Preterist movement, orthodox Christians have a real answer regarding all of the timing-texts. In my studies of 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 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 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 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.

Apotelesmatic Truth (Part 2)

   One of the foremost weapons against Preterist theology is the principle of “Apotelesmatic Fulfillment.” This holds that the imminent first-century coming of Christ was postponed due to Israel’s failure to meet the required condition of national repentance. Far from being any newfangled theology, the concept was systematically laid out by E.W. Bullinger in his 1911 work, The Foundations of Dispensational Truth. In this book Dr. Bullinger examines the various “time texts” used by Preterists to posit a first-century coming of Christ. Bullinger shows that all of these texts denoting “imminency” had sole reference to the 40 years of Israel’s probation, during which the kingdom “drew nigh” to them. But because of their refusal to repent, their city was destroyed, and the second coming postponed to a future time.

  Because this principle clears up all the difficulties connected with Preterist theology, and allows for a consistent “grammatical, historical, contextual” exegesis of the Scriptures, I have decided to write a series of papers on “Apotelesmatic Truth.” My purpose in these articles is to show that Dispensationalism (as Bullinger taught it) is superior to Preterism, and in perfect accord with the truths revealed in the Scriptures.

   When we go back to the Old Testament, we find that the promise of God coming to dwell with His people was intimately connected with Israel’s calling as a nation (Leviticus 26: 1-12). However, the condition was national obedience. Christ did not come to destroy the law and the prophets (Matt. 5: 17), but to fulfill them, and confirm the promises made to the Fathers (Rom. 15: 8). In order to “fulfill” the law, it was necessary for Christ to uphold the conditions of the Mosaic charter. This He did when taught that repentance was necessary to inheriting the Kingdom (see Matt. 4: 17).

   But we must understand what the “kingdom” is all about. It has to do with the sphere of earthly dominion forfeited by Adam when he fell. This sovereignty was (and is) to be reclaimed by the Second Adam, the Son of Man (see Psalm 8). But when the fullness of time arrived, He came unto His own, and His own received Him not (John 1: 11). Yes, the kingdom drew near to Israel. It was already “among them” in the person of the King (Luke 17: 21). But because of Israel’s unrepentance and rejection of their Messiah, He removed His throne into heaven, to reign over the Gentiles.

   These truths were played out in the history of Joseph. Because Joseph’s brethren would not have “this man” to reign over them (Gen. 37: 8; Luke 19: 14), He was cast out, and later exalted among the Gentiles. The type shows us that Israel’s rejection was essential to accomplishing God’s purposes concerning the church. But the national rejection was progressive, taking place over a forty year period. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the fruit of which Christ’s crucifixion in A.D. 30 was the seed. During the forty year interval, Christ’s return was constantly proclaimed as “about to come.” But the condition was national repentance.

   Instead of preaching a new message at Pentecost, Peter merely re-affirmed Christ’s statement that “Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23: 39). Now that Christ’s sacrifice for sin had been accomplished, and the Lord exalted to His Father’s throne, the time of His return was at hand. But Peter preached the necessity of individual and national repentance. As repentant individuals, they would receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 2: 38). But by repenting nationally, Jesus Christ would be “sent,” and the restitution of all things would take place (Acts 3: 19-21). If only they had hearkened to Peter’s admonitions!

   When Peter’s ministry in the land was rejected with the murder of James the brother of John, and Peter’s own imprisonment (Acts 12), Paul was then sent to the Dispersion. During the entire Dispensation of Acts, the Gospel was preached to the Jews first, then the Gentiles. Paul did not change this order, until Israel formally rejected the offer of the kingdom, and their judicial hardening began. The book of Acts closes abruptly with Israel’s rejection of the Gospel (Acts 28: 25-28). This occurred in A.D. 63, leaving just enough room for Daniel’s 70th week to be incorporated into the 40-year period of probation, and thus fulfill the type played out by Israel’s entrance into “the land.” But since the Jews did not repent, the offer of the imminent coming was withdrawn. Because the nation chose to follow Moses and not Christ, their city was destroyed, and since then, the kingdom has been in abeyance.

   These principles will explain why the second coming was always spoken of as being “imminent” in the first century. They will also explain why there was no eschatological coming of Christ in A.D. 70. All hinged upon Israel’s repentance, and in A.D. 63 the matter was settled. They chose their own way, and like Moses, they died in “the wilderness.” But after the type of “Joseph and his brethren,” Christ will be made known to them “the second time” (Acts 7: 13), that is, when He returns (Zech. 12: 10; Matthew 24: 30; Rev. 1: 7).

    Meanwhile, the last seven years of Israel’s history are held in reserve, and will be fulfilled when the present Dispensation of the Mystery (Eph. 3: 9) is finished. Then the age-times, which were broken off in A.D. 63, will take up their course again. It is with this final seven years that the Apocalypse deals. While I believe that book was written around A.D. 62, the date really isn’t important. The point to keep in mind is that the book is entirely prophetic, from 1: 3 onward, and that it contains the last seven years of Israel’s history.

   In studying the principles of Apotelesmatic Fulfillment, we begin to see the Scriptures harmonize in a wonderful manner. Things begin to clear up and make sense, whereas they didn’t before. Now we know why Jesus Christ told John that, “The time is at hand” (Rev. 1: 3). The time WAS at hand! But we mustn’t forget that the Mosaic charter was still in force, as well as the conditions connected therewith. The events described in the Apocalypse never materialized because the one condition needed to set them in motion was never met.

   Because the nation refused to repent, the age stopped running in A.D. 63, and that which had been hidden in God from the foundation of the world (Eph. 3: 4-5) revealed for the very first time in Paul’s prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians). If Israel had not rejected the offer of the kingdom, the riches of this valley of the Mystery (the church) would never have been revealed. But we rejoice that they have! We are now traversing this valley, and know not when our sojourn will be over. Yet we press forward for the prize of our “calling on high” (Phil. 3: 14) waiting for our bodies to be changed by a glorious transformation and resurrection (Phil. 3: 21). Then when these things have happened, the age-times will re-commence, and the last seven years of Israel’s history be fulfilled according to the Apocalyptic narrative. And Christ’s coming will happen “on time” and according to schedule. Maranatha!

Apotelesmatic Truth (Part 1)

   The forty years of probation allotted to national Israel after Christ’s crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, were patterned after Israel’s wandering in the wilderness. The Old Testament type had two outcomes. On the one hand, “that generation” died in the wilderness (Psalm 95: 10-11). On the other, Caleb and Joshua entered the land after the forty years were finished. But Caleb and Joshua represented the tribes of Judah and Ephraim, respectively (Numbers 13: 6, 8). These tribes were later revealed to be representative of “all Israel” (Ezekiel 37: 16-23). So, when we come to the antitype of the forty years of wandering, we have to ask: how could all Israel enter the promised blessings in A.D. 70? Indeed, it may be said that “that generation” died in the wilderness, because they chose to follow Moses instead of Christ. But then it is impossible that the same nation can have attained “their rest” in A.D. 70.

   What students do not understand, is that both facets of the Old Testament type were to have an antitypical fulfillment at the end of the 40 year period; however, NOT AT THE SAME TIME. Because Israel rejected the offer of the kingdom at the close of the Acts dispensation (in A.D. 63), the age was cut short, and the final seven years of Israel’s history held in reserve, that both parts of the type might have their fulfillment. That generation’s dying in the wilderness happened at the destruction of the Jerusalem in A.D. 70. But “all Israel’s” entrance into the land remains to be fulfilled at Christ’s return, at the end of the seven years which would have ensued in A.D. 63, had Israel accepted the offer of the kingdom. This final seven years is what the book of Revelation is all about.

   Although there is a great deal of controversy concerning when Revelation was written, I believe the internal evidence declares for an early date. The book is entirely prophetic, from 1: 3 onward. It was probably written around A.D. 62-63, immediately before the Acts 28 crisis in which Israel rejected the King, and as a consequence, the King’s glorious return, and those Millennial riches that lay beyond.

   It is a bold statement, but true, that the main “timing texts” used by Preterists to support the doctrine of an A.D. 70 parousia were all written during the Acts dispensation, prior to A.D. 63. This may be seen in the canonical arrangement of the so-called “General epistles,” which in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts are placed after the book of Acts. Their doctrinal connection with the Acts period needs no comment.

   The Pauline epistles, however, which canonically follow the General epistles, contain doctrines relevant to both the Acts period and the present church Dispensation which began with the close of Acts. Therefore, statements respecting Christ’s return must be “rightly divided” according to “pre-Acts 28” and “post-Acts 28,” if we would know the truth. Interestingly, the canonical order of Paul’s church epistles never varies in the hundreds of manuscripts that have come down to us. It is the canonical order which concerns us today, just as the historical and chronological would have concerned first century believers.

   The doctrines of grace revealed in the prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians) could not be revealed until Israel had formally rejected the kingdom (see Acts 28: 25-28). During the whole Acts period, the kingdom was offered to the “Jew first,” and Paul could declare that “for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain” (Acts 28: 20). Upon Israel’s rejection of their hope, however, the offer of an “imminent” parousia was necessarily withdrawn, and Paul amended his statement (in accordance with Acts 28: 28), saying that he was the prisoner of Jesus Christ for the Gentiles (Eph. 3: 1; cf. 1 Tim. 2: 7). From this point onward, the offer of salvation was never given to the “Jew first.” The charismata ceased in A.D. 63 (Phil. 2: 26; 1 Tim. 5: 23; 2 Tim. 4: 20), not to be renewed until the last seven years of the age, when God’s purposes concerning the church shall have been concluded.

   What a difference there is between the earlier Pauline epistles and those written after Israel’s formal rejection of Peter’s call to “repent” (Acts 3: 19-26). While in the earlier epistles, Paul lays great stress on an imminent parousia, this doctrine is de-emphasized in his later writings. The word “parousia” is never even used after A.D. 63 in connection with Christ’s return. The last epistles written by Paul were to Titus [A.D. 67] and Timothy [A.D. 67-68] in which he places emphasis on orderly church government, the establishment of a long-term Gospel ministry, and domestic relations. Studying these last epistles closely, it is impossible for us to conclude that he any longer considered the Day of the Lord as “near.”

   Instead of giving advice not to marry, with remarks like “the time is short” and “such shall have trouble in the flesh” (1 Cor. 7: 28-29), he writes, “I will therefore that the younger women marry and bear children” (2 Tim. 5: 14). Instead of expressing a belief that he might remain unto the coming of the Lord, Paul indicates that he expects to die before the Lord will come (2 Tim. 4: 8). Had he thought that the church was then passing through the telos (last 3 1/2 years of the age, known as the Great Tribulation) he would not have hesitated to indicate such in these later epistles. But the Day of the Lord, which was so near during the Acts period, is spoken of as more remote in his later writings (2 Tim. 1: 12, 18).

   True, the church had already begun to see signs whereby they knew it was the “last hour;” for “many antichrists” had arisen (1 John 2: 18) in fulfillment of Christ’s own warning in the Olivet and Temple Discourses (see Matt. 24: 5; Luke 21: 8). The fulfillment of these earlier signs took place around A.D. 58-60. But the signs mentioned as following (the wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes) are never recorded as historical facts in the New Testament, because they belong to the sunteleia. Therefore, they are only found in the Apocalypse! (See Revelation 6). The preliminary signs would have merged into the sunteleia beginning in A.D. 63 had Israel accepted the offer of the kingdom. But because they didn’t, the age was cut short and further development relegated to the future. The Apocalypse contains the last seven years of Israel’s history which must be re-taken up when this present valley of the “mystery” has been crossed.

   These simple principles given above will help us to understand how the term “end of the age” is used by Christ, and show why, in the Olivet Discourse, the destruction of Herod’s temple is placed alongside Christ’s coming at the end of the forty year period. It was entirely contingent on Israel’s national repentance (Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21; Hosea 5: 15; Lev. 26: 3-12; Jer. 17: 24-27; 22: 3-5; ). Hence, when enough time had elapsed for Daniel’s 70th week to be incorporated into the 40 year period and bring about a glorious finale, the crisis of Acts 28 took place, and Israel chose to die in the wilderness, thus forfeiting the promise of Christ’s first-century return.

   From that time forward, the kingdom has been in abeyance. Had Israel repented any time later than A.D. 63, the Old Testament type would have been spoiled, placing fulfillment beyond the 40 year limit. But we see the perfection and symmetry preserved in the events of A.D. 70, when Israel fell in the wilderness. Nevertheless, the story doesn’t end there! In like manner, we will see Israel’s entrance into national blessings when the present dispensation is finished, and the last seven years of the age take up their course again. And Christ will return exactly as promised, and “on time” as well. Maranatha!

“A Little While, and Ye Shall See Me”

  Among the numerous proof-texts put forth by Preterists, John 16: 16 is generally not mentioned. Although one will often hear them tout the phrase “in a little while,” it is usually in connection with Heb. 10: 37. Of course, Hebrews was written sometime prior to Paul’s first imprisonment, and bears the unmistakeable stamp of the intermediate Acts Dispensation, which ended with Israel’s formal rejection of the offer of the Kingdom (Acts 28: 25-27) made by those who heard Jesus Christ (Heb. 2: 3) and bore witness to His words with “signs and miracles” following (Heb. 2: 4; Mark 16: 20).

   But while we might say much about Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews, we are more interested now in looking at some of the timing-indicators used by Christ in John’s Gospel. In particular is the following verse: “A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father” (John 16: 16). A simple reading of the verse by anyone will reveal at once the grave problems of interpretation attending the Preterist view.

   Since this is among the final words Christ gave to His disciples before His crucifixion, it is essential we know what the phrase “in a little while” means, and not be led away by the fancies of our own imagination. Preterists who are unware of the difficulties tell us that in the former clause “in a little while” means a few days, but that in the latter clause, it means an extended period of forty years.

   Now this is quite contradictory, and it is for this reason that John 16: 16 is seldom quoted by Preterists. But it comforts us to know that the discrepancy does not arise from the text itself, but the minds of those who do not accept the plain literal statements of Scripture as authoritative.

   My understanding of the text is that the phrase “in a little while” points to Christ’s ascension, and that in both clauses it denotes a period of time nearly identical. For it really was “a little while” after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection that He ascended up to heaven. And ten days later, when Peter delivered His addresses to the nation of Israel, affirming that Christ was risen, it was stipulated that Christ was ready to return and fulfill ALL THINGS written by the prophets (Acts 3: 19-26). Therefore, His promise “in a little while, ye shall see Me” must have held good upon His ascension into heaven. There is nothing in the text to indicate that “in a little while” means forty days in one instance, and forty years in another! If that is the case, then words are useless for the purposes of revelation.

  Well, if you are a Preterist you say that Christ never returned “in a little while;” but that He returned in A.D. 70. But how do you know? The text says “in a little while,” not “in a long while.” All we have to indicate the timing of the Lord’s return is the simple phrase “in a little while.” I believe that translates into “a very short period of time,” no matter what language you speak.

   Of course, I agree that Christ never returned in a little while. But neither did He return at the destruction of Jerusalem! There was one essential condition of Christ’s return which we must keep in mind; and that was Jewish national repentance. In Christ’s last public discourse He closed the account-books against the Jewish nation by 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).

   This statement is, for all practical purposes, identical to that of Hosea 5: 15: “I will go and return unto my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek My face: in their affliction they will seek Me early” This verse is remarkable, inasmuch as it contains an unmistakable reference to Jesus Christ Who ascended up to heaven after His people rejected Him. Who else could the prophet be speaking of? It was due to this very rejection of His own people that the Roman armies came against Jerusalem and burned up their city, as foretold in the parable of the Marriage Supper (Matt. 22: 7). Therefore, that event can have nothing to do with the fulfillment of Matthew 23: 39 or Hosea 5: 15.

  Yes, Christ returned and ascended back to the Father. Then He endued His disciples with the power of the Holy Spirit, that they might bear witness to Him beginning in the very land where He was rejected and crucified (Acts 1: 8; cf. 2: 39; 3: 25-26).

   But Peter, after making public proclamation of Christ as the crucified, resurrected, and risen Messiah, said: “Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may be sent from the Presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive, until the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3: 19-21).

   This verse is the perfect key to unlocking John 16: 16, as well as Matthew 23: 39 and Hosea 5: 15. Read all these verses together, and then you will see what Christ meant when He said, “in a litte while ye shall see Me again.” It was a bona fide offer to return at once, if His people would only repent, confess their sins, and accept Him as that Prophet that Moses said should come (Deut. 18: 18-19).

   Remember, He spoke the words “in a little while” privately after He had already pronounced judgment upon the nation, and laid down the requirement for repentance; so all the texts must harmonize. It was truly “in a little while” that He should return. But as His people rejected the message of the kingdom once more, the city was destroyed and the second advent put off to a future time.

   Had the leaders of the nation repented, the 70th week of Daniel would have run its course, Antichrist have risen, the Great Tribulation have followed, and Israel’s salvation been consummated with the return of the Messiah from heaven, and the destruction of the heathen nations (Isaiah 59: 18-20; Zeph. 3: 8, 15; Zech. 12: 7-14; 14: 1-5). Christ clearly references the Great Tribulation in John 16: 20-22, indicating exactly what He meant should be accomplished in connection with His return. It was none other than the new birth of the nation. Compare with Isaiah 66: 7-9.

   Christ had to be ready to return upon His ascension into heaven– if His people would only repent. Remember when Stephen was arraigned before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7). That was a crucial turning-point. Upon making his defence to the leaders of the Jewish nation, they rejected His message concerning Jesus Christ. But he, looking steadfastly up to heaven, saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7: 55-56).

   Pay attention closely. Stephen saw Christ standing, as if in expectation that His people would accept Him; and ready to return the moment they did. The Holy Ghost was working powerfully that day (Acts 7: 51); yet the leaders again rejected Christ, and Stephen was stoned as a blasphemer (Acts 7: 57-60). This happened in A.D. 35. If the parousia had been a scheduled event, not to take place for another thirty-five years, then why was Jesus seen standing at the right hand of God, as if ready to return in fulfillment of Matthew 26: 64? Oh, how near to Israel His coming was that day! But in rejecting the Lamb of God, they put it away from them once more.

    But do you say that Jesus Christ’s offer of returning “in a little while” was not a sincere offer? Then think again. The epistle of James was written around A.D. 45 (according to the best sources). In that epistle, James told Jewish believers, “Behold, the Judge standeth before the door” (James 5: 9). Why would Christ be standing before the door if He had no intention of returning at once, and making good His promise of “in a little while ye shall see me?”

   Likewise, in Peter’s second epistle (written around A.D. 60) the apostle affirmed that “holy conversation and godliness” would hasten the coming of the Day of God! (2 Peter 3: 11-12). Yes, these Jewish believers of the Diaspora (see 2 Peter 3: 1; cf. 1 Peter 1: 1) were told that they could hasten the coming of Christ! Peter’s sincerity on this score was an echo of Christ’s own.

   When Christ said, “In a little while ye shall see Me,” He meant that He was willing to return right away. Yet there was a condition appended to His return which was never met. And therefore, Christ’s coming never materialized in the first century. With the breakup of Israel’s national structure, the promises concerning the parousia were postponed, and now remain in abeyance; though we are now seeing signs that the end of the age has again drawn nigh.

   But perhaps you’ll say to me, that it was God’s Sovereign purpose that Israel should reject Him, and that therefore Christ’s offer to return at once was not a bona fide offer. My answer: While the events that came to pass were certainly brought about according to God’s pre-arranged plan, this does not negate human responsibility. Making God the “efficient cause” of Israel’s rejection is a miserable theology which turns Christ’s Messianic work into a stage-play and a show. It was to “reconcile” the world that Christ died for sins. If God were the efficient cause of sin, then there had been no need for “reconciliation,” for all things would be according to God’s will. But “sin” is contrary to God’s will.

   My stance is that Christ’s offer to return at once and redeem Israel was a sincere offer, and conditional upon the repentance of the nation. This alone would justify Christ’s statement of “in a little while ye shall see Me.” This phrase could not mean “forty years,” but a short period of time which would follow His ascension into heaven. These facts explain the urgency of first-century expectations regarding the parousia, and also point out the fallacies of the Preterist argument, which claims that Jesus really did come according to His promise, when everyone knows He didn’t.

Conditional Deferment Of Christ’s Parousia Required By Use of The Greek Particle ‘An’

   One of the strongest, most emphatic means to negate something in Greek is by the use of the double-negative “ou me.” The figure of speech, “Repeated Negation,” is a type of Synonymia in which two negatives are placed in apposition to strengthen the force of an assertion.

   This particular form of negation was used by our Lord on forty-six separate occasions. In the King James Version it is usually translated “by no means” or “in no wise.” In Matthew 24: 34 it appears in the former clause, as follows: “Verily I say unto you, in no wise (ou me) shall have passed away this generation.” The double-negative is likewise found in the former clauses of the following texts which indicate the time of the Lord’s second coming. Matthew 10: 23; 16: 28; 23: 39.

   But in the latter clause of Matthew 24: 34, the action of the verb is modified by the Greek particle “an,” which, though untranslatable in English, makes the entire clause conditional and contingent upon some circumstance either express or implied. Edward Robinson writes that this small and practically untranslatable particle always imports and 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.” (A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg. 43).

   This is corroborated by the leading authorities on Greek literature. Giving this primary sense of the usage of the Greek particle ‘an,’ William W. Goodwin, Ph. D. writes: “It denotes that the action of the verb to which it is joined is dependent upon some condition, express or implied.” (Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb, pg. 54).

   Hence its usage in the latter clause of each of the four New Testament timing-statements used by Preterists to support the concept of an A.D. 70 parousia, cannot be overlooked without creating grave errors in the interpretation of eschatological passages.

   Regarding this use of the Greek particle “an,” Dr. E.W. Bullinger, an acknowledged authority on Greek grammar, writes that it “has no meaning in itself that can be expressed in translation, but which, whenever it is used, makes the whole clause, or sentence, conditional.” (Foundations of Dispensational Truth, pg. 62).

   Thus, when we come to study the Greek text of Matthew 24: 34, we see that the former clause contains the strongest negative that could possibly be used, whereas the latter contains an equally-defined conditional element. So likewise in Matthew 10: 23, 16: 28, and 23: 39. Translated into plain English, the text of Matt. 24: 34b reads: “Until all these things may take place (heos an panta tauta genetai)”.

   Incidentally, Young’s Literal Translation preserves (though somewhat ambiguously) this contingent element inherent in the Greek text. Here is how Young translates these four all-important verses:

   (Matthew 10: 23) “And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for verily I say to you, ye may not have completed the cities of Israel till the Son of Man may come.”

  (Matthew 16: 28) “Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.”

  (Matthew 23: 39) “For I say to you, ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye may say, Blessed [is] he who is coming in the name of the Lord.”

  (Matthew 24: 34) “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away until all these things may take place.”

  Well, what are we to infer from all this? Quite simply, we are to infer exactly what the inspired texts indicate; namely, that the fact of Christ’s coming was certain, albeit His coming at a specified period, within the lifetime of the first-century disciples, was entirely contingent on some condition not necessarily expressed by the text. Naturally, we ask, what was that condition?

   The condition was, as quite clearly stated in the Old and New Testament Scriptures, the repentance of the Jewish nation (Lev. 26: 40-42; Jeremiah 22: 3-4; Hosea 5: 15; Micah 5: 3; Matthew 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21). It was this alone that would bring the “times of refreshing” and the fulfillment of ALL THINGS that were written by the prophets. Jesus clearly stated that the nation would not see Him again until they repented. Their seeing Him again is certain (Matthew 24: 30; Rev. 1: 7; Zech. 12: 10). This same certainty, however, is conditional upon national repentance.

   The concept of prophetic deferment is demonstrated by the fact that all of Israel’s blessings were conditional upon the obedience of the nation (Exodus 19: 5-6; Leviticus 26; Deut. 11: 13-15, etc.). The supreme blessing, the advent of Messiah, was first offered to Israel as a nation under law, providing groundwork for the conditional elements later put forward in connection with the timing of Christ’s return. Preterists (as well as Futurists) agree that the law remained in effect for national Israel until the destruction of the temple and the nation’s dispersion in A.D. 70. Israel’s failure to meet the conditions required of them under the Mosaic charter explains why the blessing of a returned Redeemer never materialized during the lifetime of those to whom it was first promised.

   Inasmuch as there was no national repentance that satisfied the conditions required to bring about Christ’s certain return and the subsequent national restoration and New Covenant blessings, there was no return of Christ. It’s that simple. The destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 attested to the fact that the period of national probation had ended, and all things regarding the parousia of Christ put in abeyance until a future time. The “times and seasons” of Christ’s return now remain in the safe-keeping of the Father’s Divine counsel.

   Such an interpretation as ours fits in, of course, with consistent Protestant exegesis of the Scripture, where timing elements expressing imminency are taken quite as literally as language descriptive of those very events which were to happen “soon“–if only Israel had “received” John the Baptist as Elijah (see Matthew 11: 14), and later Christ as Messiah.

   This “apotelesmatic” principle, when properly and systematically applied, is the Christian’s only answer to the non-Protestant interpretive methods of those who take the timing-texts literally, but use a subjective understanding of the same to impose false meanings on the plain and literal statements of inspired Scripture, thus tampering with the controlling context of the very time-indicators upon which they profess to base their interpretations.

   We hold, emphatically, that the timing-statements are to be taken quite as literally as those that indicate the nature of what was to occur when the inspired writers received the oracles of God. A proper understanding of the usage of the Greek double-negative ‘ou me,’ as well as the particle ‘an,’ in all the primary texts which speak of the Lord’s second advent, while not the sole foundation of an apotelesmatic interpretation of New Testament prophetic passages, is an essential key in the hands of Christians who would unlock sacred truth, and a powerful weapon against those who attack our “blessed hope.” Maranatha!