The Lord's return

My dad died earlier this year. I wasn't there the day he died, but I was able to see him just a couple days earlier and sit with him in his hospital room overlooking the water while the sun came up. I'm very grateful I was able to say goodbye: not everyone gets to do that.

Dad was characterized by 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18. He talked about the Lord's coming every time he got a chance. My mother tells me that when my grandfather died, Dad took us kids through that passage and explained that our granddad wasn't gone for good: the Lord was going to bring him back with Him. I don't remember that, but I'm glad he did it.

I am certain the Lord's return will come in two distinct phases: He will come for us (1 Corinthians 15:51ff, 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18) before He comes with us (Jude 1:14–15, Revelation 19:11ff).  Not everyone agrees on that, but it seems evident to me that the Lord's coming is taught in Scripture in a way that the only way to reconcile all the pieces is to have a two-part event. 

Notice that's not very different from His coming the first time.  It's clear from Acts 1:6ff that the disciples assumed the Lord would fulfill all prophecy in His first advent. They were looking for a physical, earthly kingdom centered in Jerusalem – and as John MacArthur points out, this was after He had spent six weeks teaching them about the Kingdom (Acts 1:3) – and apparently thought they were on the verge of that.

I have to believe that their question about the Kingdom wasn't rooted in ignorance about the true nature of the Kingdom: I have to believe the Lord's teaching them for 40 days would have addressed that. So they were correct in their expectations, but not about the timing.

My point is that the disciples were clearly not expecting the Lord's departure and promise of a second coming (Acts 1:9ff). They saw only one Advent in the prophets. When we look back on the Old Testament after the Ascension, it's almost obvious that the prophets were predicting things that couldn't happen all in one go. They predicted Christ as both the conquering Savior and the suffering Redeemer. Those things weren't to happen at the same time. 

We admit that the Lord has fulfilled those prophecies in a spiritual sense, but it's pretty weak soup to try and read Psalm 2 as a spiritual conquest. It is a physical conquest.

We're not in Psalm 2:6ff, we're in Psalm 110:1.

In other words, we expect Psalm 110:2ff and Psalm 2:1ff will happen literally, bodily, and visibly. 

Maybe I'm belaboring the point here. Just like the disciples didn't expect the Lord to leave and come back to fulfill all those other prophecies, a lot of Christians think He is coming back for us and with us in a single event. But I think Darby, Kelly, et al. were correct in understanding that there are actually two events. 

It's early April, we had a snow storm last a little over a week ago, but we're now seeing early signs of spring. The grass is starting to look more green than brown, the standing water around our garden is starting to dry up, and the buds on the willow trees are starting to look fat. Spring turkey season opens next week, and the firewood is almost used up: time to get moving on next year's supply! There are fences to mend and trees to tend and all sorts of other tasks and chores to get a start on. 

And I have one more apple tree to plant before spring gets truly underway.

In other words, the seasons are still coming in their appointed order (Genesis 8:21–22). God's wisdom and divinity are still on display (Romans 1:18), and there's still a whole lot of work and blessing for me here. But at the same time, I am called to live in the expectation that it will all end abruptly when He comes back for us. 

That shouldn't surprise us: God doesn't stay where He belongs. He doesn't mind His own business. He keeps inserting Himself where He isn't wanted. How thankful that should make us!

I spent many years thinking that an expectation of the Lord's coming should diminish the world around us in our eyes. When I realized how wrong that was, I spent a few more years enjoying the Lord's blessings in this world, learning to appreciate the God who richly provides all things for our enjoyment (1 Timothy 6:17) .  There is a ditch on both sides of the road: we can't lose sight of the Lord's coming to change everything in a moment, and we can't lose sight of the witness in this creation to the Lord's wisdom and divinity.

So to come back to my initial point: my dad taught us that our granddad wasn't gone forever, the Lord was going to bring him back. And now I can say that same thing about him too: he's not gone forever, the Lord is going to bring him back when He comes for us.

 

Prophetic certainty

I used to wonder why the Lord's coming for us is in Acts (Acts 1:10–11) and the epistles (1 Corinthians 15:51–57; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18), but not in Revelation. I think there are a few reasons for it, which we might want to discuss.

J. N. Darby differentiates prophecy (which relates to God's purpose and government on earth) from revelation to the church. From that point of view, we could say the Lord's coming for us is a matter of church truth, as opposed to prophecy (and I think Robert has made this point here before, but I can't find it now).  So the Lord's coming for His saints is distinct from the Lord coming with His saints: the former is detailed in the epistles (1 Corinthians 15:51–57; 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18), the latter is in prophecy (Jude 1:14–15; Revelation 19:11ff).  I think there's a good deal of merit in this view.

There's another perspective on this that I think is worth contemplating.  Several years ago I was part of an assembly that went through the book of Revelation over the course of several months' reading meetings. I read through that book many, many times over the course of those meetings, and was struck that it's not truly chronological.  It struck me that Revelation is laid out similarly to Hebrews, where the Lord Jesus is shown to be superior in various comparisons. So the first three chapters show the Lord as Head (and Judge) over the church, then we see Him as superior over Heaven in the next couple chapters; then as superior over the fallen world and its kingdoms; over Satan, and Babylon and the antichrist; then as Judge over the living and the dead; and finally over the new creation. I realize that's very vague.

No doubt there are a lot of consecutive events in Revelation that are specifically mentioned, and there are clues right there in the text. For example, "then I saw" is a common phrase that indicates relation in time. But my point is that there are several sections that might well run concurrently.

It's also worth mentioning that Revelation is certainly a very symbolic book. There are several things in there that are not to be taken literally: the sword coming from the Lord's mouth, for example (Revelation 1:16). I really don't think we'll see a sword in the Lord's mouth when He comes to get us, I'm sure this is a symbolic figure.

So here's one bit of wisdom we can see in the scripture: moving the Lord's coming for us into the epistles, where the language is much less symbolic makes it much easier for us to grasp. We can firmly anchor the apostolic teaching of the Lord's coming literally, physically for us in time and space because of the context of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians. 

But we might also remember that not all prophecy is actually fulfilled.  And before you jump down to the comments section, consider the prophet Jonah. He predicted the overthrow of Nineveh in forty days, and it didn't happen (Jonah 3:4).  I don't think we fully appreciate this point: the Lord sent Jonah to Nineveh, and His word to Nineveh accomplished exactly what the Lord wanted it to accomplish. But that prophetic warning went unfulfilled, precisely because they believed it.

I have heard that exact argument used for Revelation, and it's difficult to argue against. We know that God will send prophets with the purpose that their warning will be heeded; as a result, what they warn about won't come to pass.

Now, I don't actually think that's going to happen. I do believe Revelation will play out as written. But I don't know what that will look like when it comes to pass. There is symbolic language in that book, and it can be difficult to know which features are symbolic, and which ones are literal. For example: I can believe the demonic locusts (Revelation 9:1–12) will look just like demonic locusts, I can also believe they won't really be visible at all. Remember that Elisha's servant couldn't see the angelic host around him without divine intervention (2 Kings 6:17), maybe the people afflicted by those demonic locusts won't have any sense they're there, except for the pain they inflict. I just don't know. 

But the point is that the Lord's coming for us is not described in terms that invite speculation. Will the Lord come down on an actual horse (Revelation 19:11), or is that a symbolic description? I don't really know. But notice that when the apostle describes His coming to get us (as opposed to His coming with us), he uses much more concrete language.

The Lord Himself will descend with a shout (1 Thessalonians 4:16), the dead in Christ will rise (1 Thessalonians 4:16), those who are His and are still living at that time will meet them in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:17). This isn't symbolic language, and it's not in a context laden with symbolism.

So here's a thought, and I think it gets back to the point that J. N. Darby and Robert were making: we can anchor our hope on the Lord's coming for us much more dogmatically (and certainly) than we can discuss things like what Babylon, or what those demonic locusts are. We can, in a sense, disagree on how to interpret big chunks of Revelation, while agreeing on 1 Corinthians 15:51–57 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18. 

Personally, I find Darby's view of the Revelation convincing, and there are significant differences between that and the Scofield notes view. I think I've commented on those differences before.  But there are very good reasons that honest believers sincerely disagree with me on that. And I'm not going to make it a bigger deal than it is.

That being said, I'm certain the Lord's imminent return is not in the same category as the demonic locusts.  The apostolic attitude toward the Lord's return was that it could happen at any moment, and they lived expecting it. Again, I'm not going to accuse people who disagree with me of heresy, but living out the faith once delivered to the saints involves living in expectation that the Lord is coming for us and could be here at any moment. 

 

Comfort one another

J. N. Darby, commenting on 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 said,

It is remarkable that the consolation which he gives to those who surrounded the death-bed of a Christian, is their friend's return with Jesus, and their mutual meeting. It is customary to say, "Be content: he is gone to glory." This was not the way with the apostle. The comfort which he proposes to those who are mourning the death of a believer is, "Be content: God will bring them back." What a change must not the habitual feelings of Christians have undergone, since the consolation given by an apostle is counted in this day as foolishness! The believers in Thessalonica were penetrated to such a degree with the hope of the return of Christ, that they did not think of dying before that event; and when one of them departed, his friends were afflicted with the fear that he would not be present at that happy moment.

"The Second Coming of Christ", Collected Writings, Vol. 2, pp. 290–300

I first read that 20 or 25 years ago, and I was struck by how pointed 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 is. Here's a passage that tells us what point it's trying to make, and then tells us how we are to use it. We are taught the Lord's plan for those who are "asleep through Jesus" so that we won't mourn like the heathen who have no hope (1 Thessalonians 4:13–14); and we are to be comforted by the knowledge that God will bring those departed believers back with the Lord when He comes (1 Thessalonians 4:14).

Odd as it seems, I can't recall ever hearing 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18 read at a funeral, or in connection with someone's death. But that's exactly what the passage says we should be doing. It's possible I just haven't been to the "right" funerals – I've often wondered what the reaction would be to someone reading that passage at a funeral.

And I should probably point out that it's not a prohibition on mourning, but a prohibition on mourning like those who have no hope. The Lord Himself mourned for Lazarus, even knowing he'd be raised from the dead within a short time (John 11:33–36). So no, mourning is not wrong.

But in the end, we look forward to the Lord coming for us. As long as we're among "those who remain," then we look for Him to come for us and bring back our loved ones who sleep in Jesus. If we should die first, then we don't lose that hope, but we'll see it from another side. Let's not forget that our hope isn't to be disembodied spirits, but to participate in His resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:1–4).