Jesus is coming soon!

That's what my favorite ensemble was singing at college in 1941. To some, 1941 may seem only yesterday, but for the one who knows about the high peaks of expectancy regarding Jesus' second coming and their repeated failures over the centuries—including some recent ones—forty years may seem a very long time. In fact, theologians of some denominations that have consistently preached the imminence of Christ's return are now urging that the stress on imminence be quietly phased out.

But how is it really? Does not the Bible teach the return of Christ? Does it not give clues as to the timing of the event? What about signs of its imminence? What is meant by the "return of Christ?" Can we know anything of the how, when, where, and why of it?

Perhaps it would be helpful to get some sense of perspective at the outset so that readers can know the background for our beliefs regarding Jesus' coming. The way one answers the questions just raised about the Second Advent has more to do with his view of the Bible than with his knowledge of the constantly changing kaleidoscope of events in today's world. For example, those who have problems continuing to believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ are not too likely to be excited by the idea of a Second Advent, imminent or other wise. Similarly, if the predictive element in Bible prophecy is denied there is little room left for a Second Coming.

It is interesting that even secular observers are noting the crescendo of voices proclaiming that the end of all things is near. "Boom in Doom" was Time's designation of the phenomenon. The same secular observers are sometimes recognizing that time is running out on the human race ecologically, politically, and socially. At least all recognize—when they dare to voice it—that a Damocles' sword in the form of "the bomb" dangles on a thread over the entire planet. This was more keenly sensed, perhaps, in 1946 than it is in 1982 (for the ominous fades with time's passing). But such secular awareness of potential trouble may not overlap at all with a religious belief in the end of the age resulting from the second coming of Jesus Christ to our world. The fact that the Bible describes in broad strokes some of our present world predicaments and depicts them as signs of the Advent near will undoubtedly be seen as mere happenstance by the secular observer and perhaps by others who devote themselves to theology and related fields.

For example, Dewey M. Beegle in Prophecy and Prediction (Ann Arbor: Pryor Pettengill, 1978), challenges the evangelical Christian's view that Christ is to return soon. In the process, he tends to lump together the Armstrong people, Jehovah's Witnesses, Billy Graham, Seventh-day Adventists, and Zionists. He faults them all for believing in predictive Bible prophecy. At the same time, he reminds them that he himself came out of a conservative evangelical background. (Whether he should be seen as a bellwether, the Pied Piper, or a modern Moses may not yet be clear.)

Nevertheless, the Beegle type of criticism is the natural outgrowth of a diminished view of the Bible. It represents the thinking of the contemporary theologian who has been "liberated" from any high view of the Bible's inspiration and consequent authority. This freedom can be traced back to the rationalistic Protestant theologians of post-Reformation Europe and even further. On the road to the exaltation of human reason and science above the authority of the Bible, these theologians came to deny miracles and the transmission of prepositional truth from God to man. Obviously, therefore, there was no place for predictive prophecy, which needs room for God to break into history.

It is interesting to note that rationalistic Protestant theologians picked up one denial of the predictive element in Bible prophecy from a Jesuit named Alcazar in the early seventeenth century. Alcazar's preterest principles of prophetic interpretation denied the key elements of the historicist school that had undergirded the Reformation. Preterism had no place for the predicted historical progression of world powers from Daniel's day to the Second Advent, nor for the year-day principle upon which such a progression is based. What had been seen as predictive was now pushed back into the beginnings of the Christian era or even to events of Daniel's own time, as determined by critical scholarship. But such views do not make the headlines today.

In contrast, many evangelicals hold to the predictive element in Bible prophecy and to the Biblical signs of an imminent Second Advent, and these views do make the news. Evangelicals have continued to hold a high view of the Bible's inspiration and authority, leading them to believe in the ability of Bible prophecy to predict coming events and conditions. Many seem to have abandoned, however, the his toricist principles of prophetic interpretation followed by Christ, the apostles, the early church, the Reformation, and the great Advent Awakening of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. They seem to see God's prophetic clock stopped from the days of Christ to the end of the age.

In his 1980 book, The Gathering Storm: World Events and the Return of Christ, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today, refers to the history of the scheme of prophetic interpretation prevalent in evangelical circles today. He traces its futuristic principles back to John N. Darby, a founder of the Plymouth Brethren (a small but active conservative, back-to-the-Bible movement in England and Ireland in the 1800s and early in this century). But Lindsell makes no reference to those futurist principles that antedated Darby's views. These were the work of another Jesuit, Ribera, at the time of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Ribera's views had no evident impact upon Protestants for 300 years. But Samuel R. Maitland (1792-1866), of the Church of England, and several other interpreters eventually became the link between Ribera and Darby. (For a detailed study, see L. E. Froom's The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, 4 vols., Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1946- 1954). Ribera's key prophetic interpreta tion was to see the antichrist as a single individual who would rule for a brief span of years at the end of the Christian age, just before the Second Coming.

One must respect Dr. Lindsell's frankness in discussing the multiple variations on this basic evangelical view as he canvasses their seemingly irreconcilable differences, as well as alternatives. He recognizes some of the "impossibilities" of the various interpretations given involving the rapture, the tribulation, the antichrist, the Jews (their future holocaust, their "conversion" and consequent mission), the resurrections, the judgments, the distinction between Israel and the church, et cetera.

Most impressive to a Seventh-day Adventist believer in Bible prophecy and its historic fulfillment is the complete absence of any reference by Lindsell to the role of the papacy—whether past, present, or future—in that fulfillment. (The state of Israel is given great prominence today, as though the Old Testament Hebrews were still God's chosen people and the actual land of Palestine still under God's covenant promise.) Likewise, the Seventh-day Adventist is struck by the fact that Lindsell nowhere explains, and scarcely alludes to, the gap of some 2,000 years that futurists place between the close of the first sixty-nine of Daniel's seventy weeks of years (assigned by Daniel to the Jewish people) and the seventieth week. Of course, the line of modern interpreters— including such well-known personalities as Harry A. Ironside, C. I. Scofield (of Scofield Bible fame), Martin R. DeHaan, and John Walvoord—has had its modifying impact on Darby's basic view and helps to account for some of the internal variations and tensions.

Where do we, as Seventh-day Adventists, stand in the spectrum of prophetic interpretation, and what bearing has this position had upon our view of the Second Coming and its imminence?

At the outset, let it be said that we have always held a high view of the authority of Scripture, based not upon a theory of verbal inspiration but upon the belief that chosen men of God were His channels for making prepositional truth known to man. For us this revelation carries the same authority as would God's audible voice. We likewise are among the few remaining champions of the historicist system of prophetic interpretation.

So when Jesus Christ is recorded as promising His disciples, "I will come again" (John 14:3, cf. Acts 1:9-11; Titus 2:13), we take His statement at its face value. We look for the same Jesus who ascended to His Father in the company of angel hosts and encompassed with clouds to come back as He went away—literally, personally, visibly, and for specific purposes (see Rev. 1:7; Matt. 26:63, 64; 2 Thess. 2:8).

When the Lord spoke to His disciples of Jerusalem's coming destruction, they asked Him to explain to them when those things would happen and what signs there would be of the nearing of His return. He then gave them the Olivet discourse recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Mercifully blending items that touched both Jerusalem's end and the end of the world, the Lord nevertheless placed His return beyond a period of great tribulation, which, being shortened in mercy to the church, would be linked to signs in the sun, moon, stars and to worsening conditions on the earth. And all this He presented just before He was to die in the midst of the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy, causing sacrifices to cease as acceptable to God and commissioning His disciples to continue offering God's covenant to the Jewish people for another three and one-half years before turning to the Gentiles (see Dan. 9:27; Matt. 27:51; Heb. 2:3, 4). The Lord recognized this application of Daniel's seventieth week when at the beginning of His ministry He proclaimed, "The time is fulfilled" (Mark 1:15, cf. Dan. 9:25, 26).

Thus, in Matthew 24, Christ was pointing down centuries of time during which the persecuting "little horn" of Daniel's prophecy (Dan. 7:7, 8, 19-27) would bring its wrath against "the saints of the most High" for three and one-half times, or 42 months or 1260 day-years. The testimony of nearly all Reformation interpreters was that this "little horn" (the beast of Revelation 13, the antichrist of John's epistles) was none other than the papacy. [For a perceptive analysis of this viewpoint and its continuing validity, see "The Pope as Antichrist: An Anachronism?" by David P. Scaer, Christianity Today, October 23, 1981.—Editors.] The record of her persecutions of dissenters is history. She dominated the world, both religious and secular, for 1260 day-years— approximately from 533-538 to 1793-1798 A.D.—with the power to persecute reduced before her wound unto death inflicted by the French in the aftermath of the Revolution (see Matt. 24:21, 22; Rev. 13:3). This wound was to be, and has been, remarkably healed, as witnessed by her world influence today.

This, then, is the historical setting for the great Advent Awakening following the turn of the nineteenth century. The application of the day-year principle to the 1260 days and their widely recognized termination gave new confidence to the historicist school, which then turned its focus upon the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14—the longest of the Biblical time prophecies. Their expositors reached the dramatic conclusion that these "days" would end and their Lord would come around 1843 or 1844!

England and Europe were actually the first great centers of Advent testimony. Societies, missions, publications, and conferences involved scores of trained and prominent men, clerical and secular. The light of Old World Advent expectation seemed to fade when a "tongues movement" broke out in Edward Irving's church in London and when witnesses began to urge efforts to convert the Jews and to effect their return to Palestine. As the movement declined in Europe, it gained in North America.

Lindsell refers to "these so-called prophets [who] when proved to be in error, have introduced fanciful explanations to account for their disappointments" (Lindsell, op. tit., p. 13). Actually, the witnesses in various countries, writing in different languages, were well aware of the warning against fixing the day and hour of the Advent. Initially they were well content with the year! But despite their disappointment, the fact remains that their calculations were based on the historicist system of prophetic interpretation. They were only taking the next developing step in the pursuit of present prophetic truth. [The followers of William Miller, in New England, gave consideration to the preterist principles advocated in their day by the historical-critical expositors of the Bible, but consciously turned from that system. See P. Gerard Damsteegt, Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977), pp. 63-77].

The fact is that a sense of the imminence of Christ's return became particularly acute following the epochal events of the French Revolution, the dissolution of the papal states, and the taking of the pope prisoner in 1798. The great time-line prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were widely understood and confirmed by events with worldwide impact. A great wave of interest in the predictive prophecies of the Bible, especially the 1260 and 2300 days, resulted in a worldwide proclamation of the imminent return of Christ, the hour of His judgment being come (see Rev. 14:6, 7).

It is true that the cleansing of the sanctuary (Dan. 8:14) at the close of the 2300 days was understood at that time to refer to the cleansing of the earth by fire at the return of Christ. But that does not diminish the fact that Daniel's "time of the end" (cf. verses 17, 19; 11:35; 12:7-9) had already come and that those portions of his prophecy (paralleled also in Revelation) that had been sealed or closed were now open. As a result, the greatest proclamation yet seen of an imminent Advent was underway to all corners of the world.

That message, represented by the three angels' announcements of Revelation 14, began to be and has continued to be proclaimed from that time forward. Those messages culminate in a twofold result— the development of a people revealing the character of God through faith in Jesus Christ and the return of that same Lord and Saviour to reap the harvest of both the redeemed and the lost (verses 12-20). With all time prophecies thus completed, prophetic time is no more. With the revelator, we await, but not in idleness, the Lord's soon return.

The return of Jesus Christ, opening the climactic events of the millennium (see Revelation 20), provides the all-sufficient solution to every problem that sin has created on this earth. The resurrection of the saints of all ages solves the problem of death (see 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:51-54). The eventual destruction of all rebellious souls, including Satan, will solve the problem of sin (see Rev. 20:7- 15). The creation of a renewed heaven and earth solves all ecological consequences of sin (see chap. 21:1-6). The tree and river of life (chap. 22:1, 2) bring the gift of immortality to the redeemed—a gift postponed by Adam's sin (cf. Gen. 3:17-19 with Rev. 22:3). What else? Who can even suggest what else? The prophets give us glimpses. But that is only the beginning. To dwell in God's presence and experience an eternity of opportunity and means to develop all that is noble and right will be the joy and fellowship of the redeemed forever.

We are waiting. Our Lord suggested that we would (see Matt. 25:1-13). But the signs of Christ's return are not diminishing; they are growing stronger and more universal daily (see 2 Tim. 3:1-5). We need to live as though He could come tomorrow (see 1 Thess. 5:1-6). We need to plan His work as for a lifetime ahead. As the nobleman said to the servants entrusted with his goods, "' "Trade with these till I come'"" (Luke 19:13, R.S.V.).' Yes, my college singing group was right.

Jesus is coming soon!