The Narrow Path Ministries

Did Jesus return in the first century?

A number of New Testament passages indicate that Christ was supposed to return before his generation had died. This would have been sometime in the first century AD.

First, there is the testimony of Jesus himself, who explicitly stated that some of his disciples would not die until Jesus instituted the Kingdom, and that his generation would not pass away until all his prophecies of the end of the world had been fulfilled.

Matthew 16:28 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.
Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

It is important to note that Jesus' long discourse on the end of the world, recorded in Matthew 24 and 25, was spoken in private to his own disciples.

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

In this discourse, Jesus makes a number of assertions about the fate of his disciples. One of the signs of the end would be the persecution of his disciples.

Matthew 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.

While tradition records that the disciples were persecuted and martyred, this was not followed by the return of Christ, as he promised.

The Apostle Paul, too, seemed to think that Christ would return for his generation.

I Thessalonians 4:15-17 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Note that Paul twice uses the phrase '...we which are alive and remain...'. This seems to preclude the theory that Paul was speaking of some far future generation. Paul made a similar assertion in First Corinthians.

I Corinthians 15:51,52 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 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.

Note that Paul said that '...we shall not all sleep...'. In other words, he expected that at least some of his generation would not see death. Again, there is nothing in the text to indicate the Paul was speaking about some far future generation.

Paul reiterated his belief in a soon return of Christ in the Book of Romans.

Romans 13:11-12 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.

The other New Testament writers had similar thoughts about the iminence of Christ's return.

James 5:8 Be ye also patient; establish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.

I John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

I Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

The Apocalyptic Book of Revelations repeatedly has Christ saying that he would return soon.

Revelation 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly....

By no stretch of the imagination can 2,000 years be considered 'quickly'.

So how do Christian believers respond to this?

Sincerely,
The Sincere Skeptic

Most of the Christians on this forum (I'd assume) are partial-preterists who tend to believe that some of the passages popularly interepreted as '2nd coming' passages are actually passages predicting the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. Most of the passages you mentioned (such as the olivet discourse and the bulk of Revelation) probably fall under this category.

If you read the question the disciples asked to prompt the Olivet Discourse, you'll notice that, at the very least, their primary question was about the 1st century temple, not about the end of the world.

The judgment on Jerusalem in 70AD is is said to have been a 'coming in judgment' by Jesus. These passages were not predicting a bodily return of Christ in the 1st century, but a judgment by Christ in the 1st century.

I'm sure others will respond with better insights,
Matthew

Dear Sincere Skeptic,

Welcome to the forum. You came to the right place to get your question answered. I think you are likely to get many thorough replies on this and any other questions you may be sincerely searching for.

You raise a very good point and you're not alone in your observation of this New Testament "problem". Some very well-known and respected people over the centuries have held this objection as well. From the standpoint of a 21st century Westerner, it's very difficult to read these passages and not draw the same conclusions you have. I appreciate your honesty and willingness to pose the question and open a dialogue on the matter.

It's important to remember that what we are reading in the New Testament is an English translation of 1st century Near East documents. We need to recognize that the culture of the that time and location had it's own way of speaking and writing that made sense to the 1st century Middle Eastern readers, but may seem very foreign to us 20 centuries later. Since it's we who have changed our way of speaking and reading in 2000 years, the onus is on the 21st century American readers to seek understanding of the intended meaning of these writings from the standpoint of those who wrote them.

Matt correctly pointed out that the 1st century readers of the passages you cited (as well as many modern Christian readers) could have easily, and very naturally, understood them to be speaking of an event other than the end of the world. It can be very easily demonstrated that the language used in the book of Revelation and the Olivet discourse is very similar to the apocalyptic style language used by the prophets in the Old Testament to speak about God's judgment on various nations. These judgements often came in the form one nation invading and significantly destroying another. Likewise, the language that speaks of God's "coming" is used in the OT metaphorically to speak of God sending judment as if He was Himself leading the armies (example: Isaiah 19:1). The Romans coming against Jerusalem in 70 A.D. was indisputably the end of an age (the old covenant age of the Jews). To many of them, it was the end of the world.

For the preterist and partial-preterist, the challenge you pose is not a big problem. From a futurist perspective, you may get another answer and it may be a little more difficult to defend, perhaps not.

Much more could be said (and hopefully will be). I would love to deal with some of the other passages you cited but I'm out of time for now. Hopefully, that is at least a start and perhaps someone else can pick up the ball from here for you. For a much more thorough treatment on this topic, you might want to listen to Steve's series (At least the olivet discourse portion) on eschatology titled "When shall these things be?". They are free for the taking on the tape download page.

God bless your search for the truth.

In my understanding, if preterism answers the questions you have asked, it creates a lot more, and more serious questions. I believe Christ is coming in the future, and did not come in some mystical sense when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. When He comes, "every eye shall see Him". As He Himself said, "As the lighting (not lightning) shines from the east to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be." When the sun shines in the sky from the east to the west, there is no question. Everyone sees it and knows it has shone. If Jesus had come in 70 A.D., the whole world would have known it. But no early Christian ever implied that He had come that that time. It's about as ridiculous as "the pre-tribulation rapture", or the Adventist coming of Christ in 1844 to "cleanse the heavenly sanctuary" or the JW coming of Christ "in secret" in 1914.
When Jesus truly returns, there will be no doubt! In the day of the Lord, no one will argue that He hasnt' really come.

I wil attempt to explain some of the scriptures that create the problem:


Matthew 23:36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Though the Greek word "genea" may refer, as it does today, to a period covered by the life-time of contemporaries, the primary meaning of the word, according to Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament is "race, stock, family". So could Jesus have not been talking about the Jewish race? The same word is used in Matthew 17:17

Then Jesus answered and said, "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him here to Me."

Whom is Jesus addressing? The whole generation that was alive at that time? Or is He addressing His people, the Jews? I think He was addressing the Jews, and I think he was talking about the Jews when he stated "this generation will not pass away until all these things have been fulfilled."

Matthew 16:28 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.

Many commentators have noticed that Jesus words here have followed by the description of His transfiguration, as is true in other gospels. Somehow they consider that to have been "Jesus coming in his kingdom". For the Kingdom had clearly begun in the days of John the baptizer and Jesus. Jesus had said that the Kingdom of Heaven was among the Jewish people who were standing there. The Kingdom of Heaven consists of the King (Jesus) and His subjects (His disciples). So the Kingdom was right there in the midst of the people whom Christ was addressing. Nevertheless, I have difficulty in relating the transfiguration to Jesus coming in His kingdom. So I don't have a satisfactory answer to this problem. It is written that only the Father knows when Jesus will come, and so I have considered the possibility that Jesus was in error in His statement. But I doubt this explanation also, since Jesus seems to say it so emphatically.

As for Paul, I think that he actually believed Jesus was returning in his day, and so there does not seem to be any real difficulty here.

My views are like those expressed by Chris (above). There are some preterists (though they are, I believe, a small minority of those who are thus labeled) who argue that there was a mystical coming of Christ in AD 70. Most of us at this forum, I suspect, are not of that camp.

I do not believe in a mystical coming of Christ in AD 70, though I am a preterist. I believe in a divinely-appointed judgment that came upon Jerusalem through human agency (the Romans).

This was not the second coming of Christ. However, as Chris said, such judgments are not uncommonly referred to in prophecy as the "coming" or "visiting" of God upon those being judged. It is a literary convention of the Hebrew prophets—not a suggestion of some mystical or invisible event.

Hi Sincere, The answer that Paidion gave you is possible and may be the answer or part of the answer but i think the partial preterist view also is the answer or at least part of the answer.
Matt 24.34 "Truly i say to you,this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." In Matthew Jesus is quoted using the phrase "this generation" 5 times prior and it always meant the generation he was talking to so unless otherwise indicated this is my take. Jesus seemed to be summarizing everything that would happen to the temple and Jerusalem which did happen 40 years later which is a biblical generation.
Re "the end of the world" that is a translation from the KJV which is not accurate but should read "the end of the age." The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was the end of the jewish age as the blood sacrifices of animals were ended the jews were dispersed and the center of their religion was destroyed.
Matt 16.28 "not taste death until you see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" This could be referring to Jesus's death and resurrection establishing the kingdom of God or it could refer to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentacost. When Jesus says "coming" maybe he meant coming back from death and conquering death.
Re Paul's understanding of when Jesus would return the fact is he did'nt know because God did'nt reveal it to him nor to Jesus. God uses prophets or apostles for specific tasks and does not reveal to them more then is necessary for them to complete their mission. Paul's comments however don't preclude a future generation nor specify one.
Same goes with Peter and the fact is that the point of the message is not to speculate when Jesus is returning but that he could return tomorrow and how do we measure up before him.
In Rev 22.20 "Yes I am coming quickly" You have to consider the context of that statement which is The New Jerusalem or heaven has already come down to earth and the saints are living there and presumably everyone has been judged and now after his work is done Jesus cis coming quickly, another words this is a vision of a future event not a statement in the present time.

It's interesting that I'm reading this question just now. I just read through an excellent online book, a significant portion of which is dedicated to explaining why Christ did not return in 70 AD even though many Christians (including the apostles themselves!) thought that He would.

Take a look at this site. The book is called "Restoring the Original Bible" by Dr. Ernest L. Martin. The chapters you should look at specifically are chapters 13-14 and 20.

Damon

Damon, Can I have your email address?
SoaringEagle