The term "eschatology" refers to an aspect of biblical studies which is concerned with "things of the end" or "things to come", with the fulfillment of prophecy at the time of the end. I have used the term here as title of this section of studies that will deal with the coming of the Lord ("return of the Lord") and the fulfillment of prophecy and the time of "the end of the world ("end of the ages")". As I mentioned in A personal note of introduction, the articles and studies in this section as not necessarily the final word on things, but rather reflect my personal study and research, and I am open to questions and remarks from interested readers.
Over the course of recent years, and with careful consideration and study of a number of related topics, I have come to lean toward an understanding that the so-called "second coming" of Christ, the return of the Lord or coming of the Lord mentioned in the NT scriptures may already have happened ... exactly as prophesied and taught by both Jesus and his apostles. Now, some may quickly object and claim that Jesus nor his apostles taught that the coming of the Lord "has already happened", instead they taught that it would happen in the future. We shall explore some basic principles and points concerning the matter in this study.
As I have stated in my above mentioned "Preface", I used to believe in a yet future second coming of Christ, but had various questions concerning this for a long time, especially in light of the fact that I also believed that the early church were taught by Christ and his apostles that the coming of the Lord was an imminent event which would happen even while some of them were still alive. How can I believe that the early church correctly believed that Christ would come while some of them would still be alive, and yet believe that he hasn't come as of yet, almost 2000 years later? I suppose, one solution would be that some of those believers of the early church are still alive now being almost 2000 years old ... however, such does not seem to be the case! A second suggestion for a solution might be that the scriptures actually do not speak of a then imminent coming and return of Christ, and we either have mistakes in the text or else the terms indicating a then imminent coming do not really indicate imminency ... however, the textual evidence of the many passages points to the fact that the texts are correct and that the terms actually are indicative of imminency. Another possible solution would be to consider that the belief of most of Christianity over hundreds of years, and in particular in our day and time, that the coming of the Lord is yet future, is a false belief based on wrong understanding and wrong doctrine ... which I until recently had simply dismissed as a possible solution.
I suppose most Christians assume that the coming of the Lord has to be still future, even though the reasons given are mostly on the basis of supposedly lacking external and extra-biblical evidence and on the basis of the vast majority having believed and taught this way. Most Christian's paradigm of a future coming of the Lord is rather strong and "normally" they consider and re-consider everything else in light of this paradigm and try and figure out what else could possibly be wrong and in need of correction, while not even considering the possibility that it is this very paradigm at the basis of their considerations which might be wrong.
To illustrate, it's like navigating an airplane from Frankfurt to Los Angeles, and one enters the coordinates and yet somehow the final destination doesn't want to quite point to Los Angeles ... so then we try and correct the flight path, etc and still don't quite arrive in Los Angeles. Finally, someone notices that the assumed coordinates for the originating airport Frankfurt are wrong, while the rest of the navigation elements had been quite correct. After getting away from the assumption regarding the coordinates for the originating point and correcting those, the rest of the navigation falls in place and all elements for the flight come together and we indeed are taking off from Frankfurt and land in Los Angeles.
After considering the various elements involved in searching for an accuratte understanding concerning the topic of the return of the Lord, I am considering that my assumed "yet future time" of the coming of the Lord may be the cause of the problem, while the scriptures speaking of a "soon", "at hand", "in this generation", "some will not see death", etc. are actually clear and mean exactly what they indicate. In the past, I have taken "future coming of the Lord" as my basis and tried to find an understanding for those time relating statements in Scripture which would allow for a yet future scenario even though the obvious and straight forward meaning of those words would obviously not permit a still future coming. After reading those scriptures more carefully now and including the assumption in the investigation and considerations (rather than excluding it and using it as the measure to evaluate the scriptures), I have come to recognize that the evidence of the Scriptures points to the coming of the Lord as having already been fulfilled in the 1st century AD in accordance with the prophecies and teaching of Jesus and his apostles.
Some who are not carefully reading the above may think that I am denying the so-called second coming or return of the Lord. Please note carefully: I am NOT saying that I do not believe in the coming of the Lord or that I deny the return of the Lord. I very much believe in the return of the Lord, but I am leaning toward an understanding that it already is a past event and not yet future. I do think that the timing of the return and coming of the Lord is just as clearly revealed in Scripture as is the fact itself of coming of the Lord. I shall endeavour to point out some of the basic points in the following sections of this study to further clarify reasons as to why I have come to change my paradigm concerning the timing of the coming of the Lord.
In our search and study of the Scriptures, we must recognize that truth comes from the scriptures. We cannot impose a meaning on the text of the scriptures, we must instead discover and dig out the meaning given in the text, that is, the author's intended meaning which is the true meaning. The true meaning is what the author had in mind and fixed in the text, not what readers might think or want it to mean. We must be willing to re-examine our current beliefs (or paradigms) and - if they do not line up with scriptures - be willing to change them. The scriptures not only teach the reality of a coming of the Lord, a return of the Lord, but they also teach the timing of that coming of the Lord.
Having recognized that the true meaning of a passage is the meaning of the author and not that of the reader, we must also not make the mistake of thinking that the scriptures were written now and addressed to us today. The prophecies in question here were spoken and written to Jesus' disciples and believers in the 1st century AD. This is a rather important point for our study of these sections of Scripture. There are NO books in the Bible that were written to Wolfgang Schneider and believers in Bonn, Germany; neither are there any books of the Bible that were written to any other believers living now anywhere else in the world. The Scriptures were not written to us, however they are important for us, that is for our learning. It is vitally important that we understand the original meaning and intent of the writer first, only then can we determine if there is any and what the application for us today might be.
We must discover the meaning of these passages to the original audience. The writers did not intend to write for people living 2000 years later in an entirely different culture and situation, they wrote to people living then and to whom the matter was immediately relevant and pertinent. Jesus spoke to his disciples about things that were pertinent to them; Paul wrote epistles to the believers in those assemblies in the 1st century AD. We, as readers now, are merely observers, but we are not directly addressed.
The statements in scriptures which do provide some time element in reference to the coming of the Lord involve expressions like "soon", "at hand", "shortly" etc as well as more descriptive statements, such as the one found in Mt 16:27-28. Here we read about soemthing Jesus was telling his disciples and apostles almost 2000 years ago.
Mt 16:27-28
For the Son of man shall come [lit. "is about to come"] in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he
shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the
Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Jesus stated that some of his disciples, who were standing there in front of him, would not die until He came with his angels to reward every man according to his works (cp. Rev 22:12 for this). Now, this idea flat out contradicts the belief that Jesus will come sometime in our future (unless some of those disciples are still alive after almost 2000 years), and for that reason several explanations with "excuses" have been proposed why this passage does not really mean what the words actually do say. I have listed a few of these explanations and will point out whether or not the event spoken of meets the criteria Jesus mentioned in his prophetic utterance.
One explanation claims that Jesus' words relate to the transfiguration, when "some saw the Son of man coming in his kingdom". However, we must note that the transfiguration happened only a short six days after Jesus had spoken those words, and NONE of them had yet died in those six days! Also, at the transfiguration Jesus did NOT come with any of his angels, nor is there any mention about him rewarding every man according to his works. The transfiguration can therefore not be the fulfilllment of these words of Jesus.
Another explanation claims that Jesus was referring to Pentecost because they regard Pentecost as the time when the kingdom was established. But, again, Pentecost only happened a few short months later and all exscept for one (Judas) were still alive. Also, as in the case of the transfiguration, Jesus did not come at Pentecost with any angels nor was every man judged according to his works. Furthermore, Pentecost concerns the outpouring of the holy spirit, not the coming of the Son of man. At Pentecost, when the holy spirit was poured out, Jesus was at the right hand of God, he was absent and nothing is said about Jesus "coming" in the records of the events at Pentecost.
Some claim that Jesus was not speaking of his disciples then and there, but was referring to disciples of a later age. However, the context - and especially so the parallel records (cp. Mark 8:38ff and Lk 9:26ff) - clarify that Jesus was speaking to those who were standing there and who were of "this generation" (that is, of his contemporaries), and not just some people who would centuries later stand at that same location. One simply cannot interpret Jesus' words as not being addressed to those disciples who were present on that day and standing there and hearing what he had to say. It is preposterous to claim that Jesus was speaking in reference to people of a generation centuries or milleniums later ...what sense would a statement like "there will be some people living at the time of the coming of Christ who will not die before he comes" ?? None! Why say that some would not die before he comes? Such an interpretation makes no sense.
I have also heard the explanation that there is a break in context between Mt 16:27 and 16:28 with a new topic concerning a different coming of the Son of man, and it is then implied that this coming could not be the same as the so-called "second coming" or "return". However, simple reading and considering the original audience proves that there is no such division of topics in these two verses. Jesus emphasized with his "Verily, I say unto" links back to the words just spoken and introduces further important details concerning the same subject, not a new toipic. Jesus emphatically adds information concerning the timing as well as the significance of his coming. Jesus is pointing out that it would happen when some (note: not all, not most or the majority) of them were still alive and within the timeframe of "this generation".
Some try to explain Jesus' words as referring not to the phyiscal or natural death of those who were present then, but want to interpret his words as referring to the "second death" or "spiritual death". However, that interpretation also leads to impossible conclusions. If that explanation were true, Jesus would have been implying that most of his apostles would experience spiritual death, by falling away from the faith or deserting him, etc. From the later records about the apostles, we can see that the majority of them remained faithful and even gave their lives in times of persecution.
Here we have just one passage where Jesus Christ himself is speaking concerning his coming in his kingdom. He not only affirms that he as the Son of man does indeed come to reward every man according to his works and reign in his kingdom, he also - and quite emphatically - expounds an important truth concerning the timing of his coming. He would come while some (not all, not many, nor most ... but some) of those disciples in his audience on that day would still be alive.
This is only one of really quite a number of passages where we can see that Jesus and his apostles prophesied and taught that the coming of the Son of man, the return of Christ, would not be at a totally unknown and far distant time and perhaps thousands of years away in the future, but that it would be within the timeframe of their own generation. It is no wonder that we read about the early church in the 1st century AD expecting the coming of the Lord to happen during their lifetime, it should far more surprise us to hear from most teachers and preachers today that it did not happen then and that apparently the expectations of the early Christians were either wrong or else they were disappointed in their expectations.
If the coming of Christ was delayed and the Lord has tarried for almost 2000 years, what happened? What went wrong? Did Jesus prophesy falsely and teach his disciples wrongly? Did the apostles misunderstand what he taught and they then taught wrongly? Did Jesus and the apostles teach correctly but the early church misunderstood and had a false imminent expectation?
Or did the coming of the Son of man, the return of Christ, actually happen toward the end of that generation and while some of those who had been standing there and heard Jesus make this proclamation were still alive? Could it just be that the orthodox and majority idea of Christianity throughout the centuries of the second coming happening at a yet undeterminded and completely unknown time even in our future be wrong?
I would claim that Jesus and his apostles were correct in their prophecy and their teaching. I would also consider that the error may well be with the majority of Christianity ... it would not be the first time or the first matter in which truth was lost and wrong doctrine established.