Understanding Christ’s Coming
By Uriah Smith
The Coming of Christ? IS IT PAST OR FUTURE? THERE is in some minds something of a difficulty in the expression which the evangelists and apostles use, for they frequently speak of the events referred to, in the present tense, and as if the people of their own day were the ones to participate therein; while in other places they throw in cautions against looking for the coming of the Lord, for many centuries after their time. Do these declarations contradict each other? or is there a consistent system of interpretation, in accordance with which they can all be shown to be in harmony? Let us look at some of the representative texts of each class. "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." Let no man deceive you, says Paul to the Thessalonians, and cause you to think the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is to take place in your day; for the apostasy must first take place, and the man of sin be revealed, and run his appointed career. This man of sin is generally understood by Protestants to mean the papacy; and this is, beyond question, correct. Paul's caution, then, covers the whole period of time from his day onward through the long ages of papal rule, bringing us down as late in the gospel age, at least, as 1798, when papal supremacy received its death blow at the hands of the French. Not till this point was passed, could any one, according to this instruction of Paul's, look for the coming of the Lord as an event immediately to occur. How then, shall those other declarations be understood, which seem to represent the event as one which was at the very door when Paul wrote? Do they mean that it was to be looked for in that age? If so, then is our beloved Bible involved in a hopeless contradiction. But we think we can show that all the trouble with these passages arises from overlooking one simple fact, and ignoring one rule of interpretation, which is as beautiful in itself as it is of frequent application in the inspired writings. It is that in prophetic language the present and past tenses are frequently used for the future; and writers sometimes apparently speak of themselves, when they mean persons who are to live far in the future. God, to whom a past and future eternity are one eternal now, "calleth those that things that be not as though they were." Rom. 4:17. And Paul uses this language to explain the promise God made to Abraham, saying, "I have made thee a father of many nations," when as yet he was not even the father of a single child. Goold Brown's "Grammar of English Grammars," than which there is probably no better authority in the English language, on page 343, thus speaks on this point :- "In the language of prophecy we find the past tense very often substituted for the future, especially when the prediction is remarkably clear and specific. Man is a creature of present knowledge only : but it is certain that He who sees the end from the beginning has sometimes revealed to him, and by him, things deep in futurity. Thus the sacred seer who is esteemed the most eloquent of the ancient prophets, more than seven hundred years before the events occurred, spoke of the vicarious sufferings of Christ, as of things already past, and even described them in the phraseology of historical facts: 'Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions: he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.' Isa. 53:4, 5. Multiplied instances of a similar application of the past tenses to future events occur in the Bible, especially in the writings of the prophets." The same prophet, Isaiah, uses the present tense for the future. Chapter 9:6: "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." Yet this language refers to Christ, who was not born till more than seven hundred years afterward. David also says, Ps. 16:10: "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." Here he seems to speak of himself; yet he does not refer to himself at all, but to Christ, in whom the language was fulfilled more than a thousand years afterward, as explained by Peter in Acts 2:31. Exactly so with Christ and his apostles when they speak of the future second coming of Christ as though immediately to take place. They carry the mind right forward to the last generation and then speak of the event from that standpoint, as at the very doors. Our Lord in Matt. 24, announces the signs that should herald his coming. He addresses the generation that should witness them: "When ye shall see all these things." Then he says, "This generation [the one certainly that witnessed the signs] shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. The present generation has witnessed the signs, and hence shall also witness the consummation." Paul, more frequently perhaps than other New Testament writers, uses this figure of anticipation, if we may so call it. "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed," he says to the Corinthians, "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." In the first part of this same chapter he speaks of above five hundred disciples who saw the Lord after his resurrection, and says that the greater part of them remained at that time, but some were fallen asleep. By falling asleep, then, he means falling in death. "We shall not all sleep," shall not all die. Was this true of Paul or any of his companions? Did the last trump sound in his day? Were the dead raised incorruptible? Were the Christians then living exempted from death, and changed in a moment? Did this corruptible and mortal then put on incorruption and immortality? Was death then swallowed up in victory? Was this all accomplished in Paul's day? Certainly no man in his right mind can so believe. What then? Paul simply goes forward to the last generation of Christians, and speaks as if personally among them. How beautifully does this manner of speech link together the whole Christian family! He does not look over into the future and say, they, but we, as though he stood in the midst of them. The first and last meet together; and we are recognized as belonging to the same family, and standing in the same company, with Paul. So in 1 Thess. 4:15, he says, "We which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord," &c. Other like expressions might be given, which, on the hypothesis we have named are clearly explainable, but on no other. This simple rule frees these passages of every vestige of difficulty, and preserves intact and inviolate the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Eschatology, or the "science of last things," occupies a very prominent place in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The coming of the Lord, and the coming of the Son of man, stands out prominently upon the prophetic page. We have reached the time to which these predictions pertain; and we would that men might now live as if conscious that the grand epiphany of deity is soon to open to their vision. U. S.