Delayed? Fulfilled? or Double-Fulfillment?

Author:   Timothy A. James

Book Review By Jeffrey B. Kessel

The author argues with compelling force that the so-called “reasons” for Jesus Christ’s failure to return in the first century are nothing more than misunderstandings of the nature of that parousia; i.e. it’s purpose and the biblical record concerning the doctrine of eschatology. Part One is the substance of a scholarly paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) in 1982. It deals with the time problem of Christ’s return and how various scholars have dealt with the problem of the expected imminency of Christ’s return in the first century. Part Two addresses the “problems present-day scholarship is facing in regard to redaction criticism in Lukan eschatology”.

Futurists who teach a “delay” or “non-occurrence” of Christ’s return in the first century base their position on physical/literal methods of interpretation, rather than looking at them as figurative/spiritual language. But the Bible views these things within the framework of salvation/redemptive history, within the Purpose of God as it relates to fallen man. Therein lies the real problem with all futuristic eschatologies, which must (if they acknowledge the NT Church expected Christ’s coming in their generation) account for the “reason” why Christ did not return as expected. And they must do it without destroying the inspiration of Scripture.

The Messiah’s Return clearly shows the untenable nature of these “explanations”. Tim’s first task is to review the various passages in the Bible which relate to the time of Christ’s return. In examining Matthew 16:27,28 and Matthew 10:23, he concludes that the coming of the Kingdom of God was imminent, to occur within Jesus’ own generation. He then proceeds to explain the biblical meaning of the word “generation”, which is roughly a 40-year period.

Knowing that Jesus’ parousia was imminent in that generation, Tim asks, “Was Jesus mistaken?”. Here is what I consider to be the heart of the book, as Tim delves into the current “scholarly” view that Christ did not return in that first century generation, even though the first century church awaited Him. He either delayed His coming, or failed to come for some reason. Tim reviews various “delay/non-occurrence” views, but states that the real reason we even have to create such views is because we simply misunderstand Bible eschatology. “As the Church became more gentile-dominated, it lost it’s ability to understand the significance of the events surrounding the end of the Jewish theocracy”. Much of the early church before A.D. 70 was Jewish and understood the symbolic language used in prophetic writings. But the church rapidly became gentile-dominated after A.D. 70, and they did not comprehend the apocalyptic language. Thus, a futuristic/physical view of the end-time replaced the truly biblical/spiritual view of the Kingdom of God (which was the central theme of eschatology), and Christians began trying to explain-away the “enigma of non-occurrence”.

A brief survey of those events surrounding the destruction of the Jewish System is the next section in the book. Here, Tim takes the reader into the first century, and looks at the truly awful nature of that destruction, for both Jews as well as Christians. Too many of us today fail to see the full impact this event had on Christianity.

Finally, in Part One, Tim refutes the “double-sense” theory, which says that prophecies concerning the fall of Jerusalem were just “types” of the yet-future second coming of Christ. But such a view is totally out of harmony with normal interpretive methods, and in no sense did the age-changing, consummation of God’s Plan have an intended double-fulfillment, even though some prophecies (as exceptions to the rule) might have double-fulfillment. This one catastrophic event was the predicted “end of the world/age”, and that event and all its associated ramifications was the target toward which all prophecy aimed.

In Part Two, Mr. James examines recent work on the eschatology of Luke’s writings. Luke is found to be consistent with the other NT writers in saying that the parousia was imminent. The non-occurrence theory has to be rejected, since the Bible clearly teaches a 70 A.D. return of Christ.

In the last section of the book are excerpts from two nineteenth century writers, J.S. Russell and E. Hampden-Cook. Both show that Fulfilled Eschatology is not just a view held by some on the outer-fringe, but that this eschatology was understood and discussed throughout the last several centuries. Many are finally waking from very groggy interpretations of the Bible and seeing that eschatology teaches optimistic triumph and joy, not pessimism, hysteria and paranoia like futurist views are teaching.

Tim James’ “The Messiah’s Return” is a short, but meaty book which puts the “explanations” for Christ’s “failed” return where they belong (in the ash heap of history). Either the Bible is inerrant and understandable, or Christianity is false. Either Christ came then in the first century as He promised His followers 2,000 years ago, or nothing He said can be trusted. There is no alternative. But, He did come, and we live in His presence in the fully established kingdom. That should inspire us to live in joy as full-fledged heirs of His great eternal Kingdom. Add this very fine study to your arsenal for combating theological liberalism. It will give you some real substance to fight back with.

Articles