Since, despite the prediction of Family Radio director Harold Camping, Christ did not return yesterday (May 21), one might logically assume a dampening of his followers' enthusiasm. Time, however, will tell - particularly given the fact that this latest episode represented his second failed forecast of Christ's return.
That claims of this nature provide fodder for the anti-Christian grist mill needs little clarification here. Even more regrettable is the disillusionment that will inevitably attend the naive within some third world countries where Camping's projections reportedly occasioned widespread followings.
At the same time, we would touch upon another prophetically related concern which we view as ultimately possessing the capacity for creating additional vulnerability on an even wider scale - not only abroad but here as well.
+ + + + + + +
Toward the conclusion of his earthly ministry, Jesus advised the Twelve of his impending departure - the fact of which they found profoundly unsettling. Despite weighing heavily on their minds, however, they were not to be of a "troubled heart" in that his absence would not be permanent. He would return to them, first spiritually (John 14:18-23) and, ultimately - in keeping with the intent of their subsequent questioning - physically. Thus the reiteration of his promise: "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you'" (John 14:28).
Given his announced departure and subsequent reunion with them, our Lord's Disciples were clearly of the persuasion that his return would take place in association with "the end of the age" - hence their two-fold, yet singularly focused, inquiry: "What will be the sign (singular)of your coming and of the end of the age?" (Matt. 24:3). Having undoubtedly shared this time line concurrence in previous discussion with the Twelve, it reasonably followed that Jesus did not seek to reorient their understanding in this regard. Nor, to further confirm the point, had he in any way attempted to alter Martha's correlative perception that her brother Lazarus would "rise again in the resurrection on the last day." All of which brings us to the following:
There is no record prior to the eighteenth century of the Church's having at any time endorsed the currently popular "two-phased" proposal wherein Christ "returns" (or " appears") to translate the Church to heaven, followed some seven (or as per some, three and one half) years subsequent by his "coming" with the previously Raptured believers in power, judgment and glory for the purpose of overthrowing the "man of sin" and establishing his own earthly Kingdom of peace and righteousness (this latter also known as "the day of the Lord."
That this two-fold thesis fails of biblical correspondence is readily ascertainable in that Scripture repeatedly equates Christ's return with his coming in power to reign. (Due to present space limitations we shall, Lord willing, provide a somewhat lengthy outline of such passages in the near future.)
In the meantime, it remains something of a quandary that so many committed to a purported time line distinction between Christ's "return" for the purpose of being reunited with his Church and his "coming" in power and judgment to reign fail to see the inherent contradiction of numberless sermons and dissertations concerning our Lord's return as based on his reply to the the question: "What will be the sign of your coming?" (again, Matt. 24:3).
Might not a little more consistency prove useful here?
Burl Ratzsch
