Many students of the bible agree that man's restoration to the reign, the fel­lowship, and the presence of God is the goal of redemptive history. There is, however, consider­able disagreement as to when and how this goal is reached. Some see it realized at physical death. Others place it at the end of history—meaning the end of time and the destruction of the earth. But is this the end that is found in scrip­ture?

 

When we examine the end-time teachings of Christ and his apostles in the historical setting of their time and against the background of Old Testament prom­ise, prophecy and expectation we discover the goal is reached through God’s work through Christ which reached a climax at the consummation of the Old Covenant Age.

 

In this series of articles, we have seen that Christ ushered in the fulfillment of redemptive history, not a two thousand year extension. In Christ the end is reached (Rom. 10:4; Matt. 5:17, 18). All things are summed up or brought together in him (Eph. 1:10) through the eschaton that was initiated in his death and consummated in his Parousia (or revelation) at the end of the Old Covenant aeon in 70 AD (Heb. 9:26; Matt. 24:3; 1 Pet. 1:13; 4:7).

 

The nearness of the consummation from John's standpoint (Rev. 22:6­-12) correlates the coming of the New Heaven and Earth, the New Jerusalem, and the tabernacle of God (21:1-3) with Israel's pronounced end-time in New Testament scripture. The "New Jerusalem" and the "True Tabernacle of God" logically follow the ultimate dissolution of the Old (Heb. 8:13).

 

In Part 2 of this series, we saw that there is no veil separating the inner sanctuary from the outer holy place in the restored tabernacle of God. Redeemed humanity is separated from the Presence of God no longer. In the New Jerusalem, God dwells in the midst of his people forever. John, therefore, in the closing scenes of Revelation described the spiritual glory and bliss of his immediate future. John harmonizes with Christ's Olivet discourse in seeing the goal of biblical, redemptive history being reached in "that momentous crisis at which the Christian church as a whole burst forth forever from the chrysalis of Judaism, awoke to a sense of its maturity, and in government and worship at once took its independent stand before the world" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. I, pp. 403-404).

 

Against the background of this biblical eschaton, we now call attention to another prominent text that addresses humanity’s return to the Presence of God through Christ. On the eve of his betrayal Jesus said to his disciples, "Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to myself; that where I am, there you may be also" (John 14:1-3).

 

Perhaps more than any other coming-of-Christ passage this one may provide the most cogent insight to the meaning, the outworking, and the historical setting of Christ's Parousia. Three basic stages are set forth in this passage. One, Christ goes away.  Two, he goes in order to prepare a place. Three, he returns to receive his disciples unto himself. In being gathered unto Christ redeemed humanity is brought into the abode and presence of the Father.  “That where I am,” Christ said, “there you may be also” (v.3).

 

We propose to show that these three stages of Christ's parousia, his departure, his absence, and his return are further delineated in the apostolic writings, and that they are car­ried out with the purpose of consummating the sal­vation that Jesus said "is of the Jews" (John 4:22).

 

All that Jesus said about going away, preparing a place, and gathering his disciples unto himself at the end of the age (Matt. 24:3, 14, 31) aligns perfectly with the coming of Christ and the new things of the new creation spoken of in Revelation 21-22. This represents the complete arrival of the things promised by God to the fathers of Israel in terms of the covenant confirmed in Christ.

 

The New Jerusalem, for example, is the "promised city" (Heb. 11:10), the "prepared city" (v.16), and the "con­tinuing city" (13:14) of the New Covenant (Gal. 4:21-31) which "can­not be shaken" (Heb. 12:22-29). The Old Jerusalem could be shaken, and in fact was shaken as predicted by Jesus in Matthew 24.  It gave place to the coming of the New Jerusalem of Christ's revelation and abiding presence (Parousia). The future Jesus talked about in Matthew 24 is pre­cisely the future that had arrived at the time John wrote the Revelation of Christ and of the new things (Rev. 21:5) of his world (John 8:23)—that is the New Covenant cre­ation.

 

Traditional theology is committed to reading the ‘future’ as discussed in the New Testament texts from the viewpoint of our day rather than the time of Jesus and the apostles. Con­sequently, this approach extends the gospel's eschatological future far beyond its original biblical setting. This negates the one and only salvation that is of Old Covenant Israel and its full rev­elation in Christ at the end of the Old Covenant Age.

 

One illustration of this is the way 1 Peter 1 is commonly interpreted concerning the "salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (v. 5). Since the revelation of this salvation is tied to "the revelation of Jesus Christ" (v. 13), modern interpreters assume that this salvation comes at the end of the “Christian Age” because they assume that this is the time when Christ is to be revealed. Such an approach diminishes the fullness of the salvation that is of the Jews by adopting a "church age" gap theory and waiting for the demise of the supposed prolonged “church age” in order to tap into Israel's postponed salvation.

 

Consider that the salva­tion in 1 Peter 1:5 was "ready" to be revealed in the same sense that the Old Covenant in Hebrews 8:13 was "ready" to pass away. And bear in mind that A.D.70 is the biblical focal point for the end of the Jewish age (Matt. 24:3).  Also, this salvation was to be revealed concurrently with the revelation of Christ (1 Pet. 1:13).  

 

Now we don't have to assume when this revelation occurred. Jesus said concern­ing the days of Noah and Lot, "Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed" (Lk. 17:30). Underscore this passage because salvation is revealed when Christ is revealed. When is this day? Read the next verse. Jesus said, "In that day" (the day when the Son of Man is revealed) "he who is on the housetop, and his goods are in the house, let him not come down to take them away. And likewise the one who is in the field, let him not turn back" (v. 31).

 

Now compare Matthew's account of that same day and of the same set of instructions, "Let him who is on the housetop not come down to take any­thing out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes" (Matt. 24:17-18). Jesus is referring to an event that would happen during the time of his contemporaries, an event that would prompt the Judeans to head for the hills (24:15-16).  This was a clear reference to the fall of Jerusalem which was also the end-time when salvation was received (v. 13-14).

 

So here is what we have. In identi­cal passages with identical instructions, Luke speaks of the day when Christ would be revealed and Matthew speaks of the time when Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Romans. If these are not concurrent events, then at least one of these gospel accounts is wrong. I rather think the error is of another source.

 

But the point is, the four things found in the combined, harmonious accounts of Matthew and Luke, (1) the day, (2) the revelation of Christ, (3) the end, and (4) the receiving of salvation, all correspond perfectly with what we have in 1 Peter 1. The only difference is time; Peter was nearer to the day of salvation than when Jesus originally spoke on the Mount of Olives.  When Peter wrote, he was in a posi­tion to say concerning the day of Christ's revelation, "But the end of all things is at hand" (4:7).

 

Also, the salvation in 1 Peter 1 is the identical salvation that Jesus said is "of the Jews." Peter wrote, "Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you" (v. 10).  Jesus and Peter (as Jews themselves) looked for the salvation spoken of by the ancient Hebrew prophets.  Did the Hebrew prophets speak of two salvations, one that Jesus said is "of the Jews" and one that Peter said is "of Christians"? Does it take the passing of two ages (Jewish and Christian) to obtain what God promised through the prophets of Israel?  Have the last 2,000 years been simply a “fill-in time” between the end of the Jewish age and the coming of Israel's promised new things—the New Heaven and Earth (Isa. 65:17), the New Jerusalem (vv.18, 19), and the taber­nacle of God (Ezek. 37:26-28)?

 

Did the first-century church believe that before the Old Covenant age came to its end Chris­tians needed to gear up for the end of the New age?  How could this be a recommendation of "the more glorious" ministry of the New Covenant?  It would not be very glorious if as soon as it was initiated (after having 1500 years of preparation) its end might come anytime, even before the Old Covenant age came to its completion.  But worse, it would have to end before the saints could receive the grace and salvation of Old Testament prophecy (1 Pet. 1:10, 13) if Peter were speak­ing of Christ's revelation at the end of the “Christian Age.” Now that kind of end-time concept minimizes the transformational power of the cross to bring about the consummation of the New Covenant.

 

Picture this. Jesus taught that the destruction of Jerusalem would be a time of tribulation, "such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were short­ened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be shortened" (Matt. 24:21, 22). But before this "unsurpassable" holocaust occurred Christians prayed in their assemblies, "O Lord come" (1 Cor. 16:22; Rev. 22:20), which would mean (ac­cording to the way his coming is commonly understood today) that they would be praying for an instantaneous fiery destruction of the whole earth. Such a global catastrophe would wipe out all flesh and far surpass the destruction of Jerusalem, thereby disproving Jesus’ claims.

 

Futurist end-time views can't escape this dilemma. In their view of the end, those first-century saints would be waiting for the fall-of-Jerusalem disaster, being assured by Jesus that all flesh would not perish. At the same time they would be wait­ing, watching, and praying for Christ to come in a destruction that wipes out everybody; no flesh would be spared. I wonder if they ever pondered which destruction they should pray for the more fervently: the one that would vindicate gospel faith or the one that would extinguish it from the earth.

 

I doubt the prophets had this in mind when they spoke of a coming age, an everlasting age, wherein "all families of the earth" would be blessed.

 

Frankly, the church’s interpretation of the end-time does not match the historical setting for the end time that Christ and the apostles talked about. The gospel's eschatological future was designed to put the gospel in business on this earth rather than put it out of business.

 

Now that we have observed some of the indicators of a first century end-time framework (and they are replete in scripture), we have the biblical setting for understanding the meaning and purpose of the de­parture, the absence, and the return of Christ.

"I go to prepare a place for you" (John 14:2). Why does Christ depart from the "world below" (John 8:23)? This is an important question. Until it is determined from scripture the rea­son and the necessity for Christ's de­parture, it will be extremely difficult if not impossible to capture the bibli­cal background and historical setting for stages two and three - his prepar­ing a place, and his Parousia (arrival/ presence).

 

The world of his "second presence" is difficult (if not impossible) to understand if we misapprehend the world of his first coming and subsequent de­parture. Consequently, the place and the event for the gathering of his dis­ciples unto "himself" ("that where I am, there you may be also" v.3) have become overshadowed by an ever-in­creasing maze of speculation and interpretation.

 

Where then is Christ to be found from the time of his birth until his departure? To say that he came to and departed from this global earth with­out further qualification is a critical, colossal departure from this initial stage of redemptive history. The Bible says that Christ "came to his own" (John 1:11). He did not come to the Romans, the Babylonians or the Egyptians, but to the Jews. He was Israel's Messiah (Rom. 9:5). In all things he was made "like His brethren" (Heb. 2:17), and this likeness takes in much more than his physical nature.  He was "born of the seed of David" (Rom. 1:3), and Paul captures the broader meaning of the words, "according to the flesh", when he wrote that Christ was "born under the law" (Gal. 4:4). Jesus entered into the mode of life that was peculiar to Old Testament Israel. He lived, taught, suffered, and died within the borders of that fleshly, typical world (cosmos) of re­demptive history. That was the world of Christ's departure which stood over against "the world to come" of his Parousia.

 

But some may ask, "Did not Christ come to save all nations? Did he not taste death for everyone?" Absolutely. There is no dispute about this. The question is, "Where does he become the Savior of all men, and what is the biblical background of his salvation"? Christ said that "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).  Never is salvation said to be "of the Gentiles" (Eph. 2:11, 12). This is why Christ came to the Jews. He would not have been the Savior of anyone had he come, for example, to the Romans, lived, taught and died in Rome and departed from their world. There was no salva­tion-history to be fulfilled in that or any other nation except in the Old Covenant nation of Israel.

 

There is more. Christ would not have been the Savior of all men, not even of his own brethren "according to the flesh," had he remained in the Old Covenant world. Its inability to deliver sal­vation to the Jews, not to mention all nations of the earth, had been demon­strated over and over for 1,500 years.

 

The Jews mistakenly believed that when Christ came he could patch up the old garment and make it work. He made it clear, however, that the "world be­low" (the Old Covenant cosmos) was not his world (John 8:21-24; 18:36). His world, wherein the salvation "of the Jews" would be fulfilled and ex­tended to all nations, was “above.”  It was the world of God's promise to Abraham, the heavenly country (Heb. 11:8-16), and the heavenly Jerusalem that stood in con­trast to fleshly Israel's earthly land and city (Heb.12:22).

 

When this "world above" concept is followed through in New Testament scripture its New Covenant identity is remarkably clear. For example, the Jerusalem above, also called the New and the Heavenly Jerusalem, specifi­cally is said to be the city of the New Covenant creation in Galations 4:21-31, and in Hebrews 12:22-24.

 

The point is, had not Christ, by means of his death, departed from the Jewish world, he could not have made good the promises of God to the fathers of Israel (Rom. 15:8). "For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righ­teousness of faith...Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all" (Rom. 4:13, 16, emphasis added).  Paul reasoned, "For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of prom­ise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise" (Gal. 3:18). The “place" (country) for the realization of "the promise" is the “place" that Christ went to prepare for his disciples.

 

That is reason enough for Christ's departure from the world into which he was born, the world that placed him "under the law" (Gal. 4:4), the world in which he lived, taught, and died, and therefore the world from which he departed.  He departed, in con­junction with the imparted Holy Spirit, to provide the means by which God prepared a better place, with a better covenant, for the better things that were to come in the fulfillment of God's promises to Israel.  In this coming new world (not the departing old world) the Gentiles were made partakers of Israel's spiritual things (Rom. 15:27) as "fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel" (Eph. 3:6).

 

In our next article we will deal with the time and the meaning of Christ's absence, particularly from the stand­point of the arrival and the ministry of the imparted Spirit. It will be shown that Christ's "absence" does not span 2,000 years of the “Church Age.” The “preparation” in conjunction with the Spirit covers the 40 year period, the "last days," of the Old Covenant Age.  When the absence of Christ and the presence of the Spirit are correlated in purpose and work, and the historical setting in New Tes­tament scripture is honored, the fully prepared place - the world of Christ's "second appearing" - will be remark­ably clear. Equally clear will be its contrast to the world of Christ's departure.

 

 

URL: http://www.presence.tv/cms/jrn-presenceofgod-03.php

---

Top of Page

Email Article

Printer