The Time is Near (Part 1): Eschatological Imminence in the New Testament
Can Christ return tomorrow? What about next week? Can he return at any time, or must certain things happen first? And what are those things? And how do we know they are still future and not in the past?
These questions are just a few of the ones I want to address here and in the next few weeks. For if the imminent return of Christ is a precious doctrine to you (as it should be), then ironically, some of the most popular views on eschatology, especially those related to Dispensationalism, actually undermine the doctrine of Christ’s imminence, even as they heighten speculation about what must happen before his return.
Pursuing this doctrine—the imminent return of Christ—I will consider the places in the New Testament that speak of Christ’s nearness, and I will attempt to show you that the best way to read those texts is not as prophecies pointing to events thousands of years into the future. Instead, the best way to consider the language of imminence in the Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation is to see the promises of Christ “coming” (parousia) as being fulfilled in 70 AD.
Such an early fulfillment does not deny the future coming of Christ. Rather, it clears the way for Christ to come at any time. To say it differently, if I am reading the New Testament correctly, then it supports his imminent return. But it supports this doctrine in ways that might be different than you have heard, especially, if you have heard them explained with a Dispensational timeline.
So, in what follows let offer one argument in four parts.
Two Problems with Delaying Christ’s Parousia
In The Last Days According to Jesus (1998), R. C. Sproul begins his book by discussing Betrand Russell’s rejection of the Christian faith. Russell (1872-1970) was an atheistic philosopher, who rejected the God of the Bible. Yet, as Sproul points out, Russell took very seriously the claims of Christ and his coming kingdom. Sprouls observes,
On this basis, Russell dismissed Christ. And he is not alone. Albert Schweitzer, Rudolph Bultmann and “a multitude of highly learned specialists in the field of biblical studies” (14) have also looked at the way Jesus spoke about his return and decided since he did not make good on his promises that he is not worth believing. Sproul himself, who was one of the greatest defenders of the Bible’s inerrancy, was trained in a seminary where “much of the criticism leveled against the trustworthiness of Scripture was linked to questions regarding biblical eschatology” (15).
Historically, Dispensationalism flourished in the early twentieth century because it believed the Bible, defended its divine inspiration and authority, and maintained a strong belief in the supernatural—including the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and his future return. And significantly, Dispensationalists argued for the imminent return of Christ and defined his imminent return in terms related to the Rapture.
Still, the imminent return of Christ in the rapture is not the same thing as his final return, when "Christ judges the living and the dead", as the Apostles' Creed frames it. Instead, the Dispensational doctrine of the imminent return of Christ is keyed to the first of many events (e.g., the rapture, the tribulation, the millennium, etc.) that lead up the eternal state. There, Christ separates the sheep and the goats and makes all things new in the new heaven and new earth. Thus, in response to the critics who denied the Bible and other Christians who understood the church age to be the millennium, Dispensationalists rightly defended the veracity of the Bible and they continued to hold to a doctrine of the Lord’s imminent return. Yet, in making the case of Christ’s imminence to be anything beyond the first century, they are forced to break one of their cardinal virtues—namely, the literal interpretation of Scripture.
Reading With the Grain of Scripture
As John Walvoord explains in his book, Millennial Kingdom, the "literal method" of interpretation is the standard for all Dispensationalists.[1] Yet, as the critical scholars point out, a literal reading of Christ’s prophecies about a near return is difficult to believe. For how can Christ say that he is coming soon (Rev. 22:20) or in this generation (Matt. 24:31), when in fact the first century came to an end, and Jesus had not returned visibly, bodily, or physically? Even more, now that it has been two millennia since he ascended to heaven, how can we read Jesus’s words as being factual?
Of course, the skeptic’s solution to the eschatological statements of Jesus is to deny the claims entirely and to charge the Bible (and Jesus!) with errors. Christ said he would come soon; he didn’t; and so he must have been wrong. For the Christian, this rejection of God’s Word is deadly to the faith. And it is not necessary, either. For as we will see, dismissal of Jesus’s claims is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what he said, combined with an attempt to make Jesus’s plain speech mean something else.
For in fact, one of the more common ways to resolve the eschatological speech of Jesus is to cast Jesus’s words into the far future. For example, John Walvoord (1910–2002), a well-known scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary, offered three age-old and/or futuristic explanations for explaining Matthew 24:34 (“This generation shall not pass, until all these things be fulfilled”).
First, he suggests that “this generation” might mean the race of the Jews; or, second, it might mean “this age,” where the word “generation” stands in for a long period of time. In both instances, the generation of the Jews or the long period of this age will continue until the second coming. Then third, he offers his own view, wherein he concludes that the generation in view “is not the generation to whom Christ is speaking, but the generation to whom the signs will become evident.”
Thus, by means of forwarding Jesus’s words from the days of his first advent to the days of his second, Walvoord solves (so he thinks) the riddle of Jesus' imminent promise. By Walvoord’s light, Jesus did not claim to come in his own generation—meaning something in the first century. Accordingly, the skeptics have no place to reject this claim or anything else.
This is but one example of the ways that Jesus’s imminent language has been protected from skeptics who demand a more natural reading. But is this the best way to interpret what Jesus is saying? Is Jesus really describing events thousands of years in the future, when his own death was days away? To answer that question, we need to look more carefully at the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21). And then we also need to consider how Jesus’s own interpretation of the Prophets is fulfilled in his own day, before taking Jesus words as pointing far into the future.
Why (Partial) Preterism Is Better Than Futurism
Now, to return to R. C. Sproul: He does not follow the futurist reading of the Olivet Discourse or any other part of the New Testament. Instead, he argues for a preterist reading. To be more specific, he calls for a “moderate preterist” reading, which does not deny the fact the “some crucial prophecies have not yet been fulfilled” (24).[2] Still, as I will show in Parts 2 and 3, the most natural (and even literal) way to read Jesus’s words about his imminent “coming” are found by means of seeing the ways Jesus fulfilled Old Testament promises to bring judgment upon Jerusalem—a reality that came in 70 AD.
This is why the approach that Sproul makes, and that I will make too, is called (partial or moderate) preterism. Instead of reading Jesus’s words as direct prophecies to some later period of time, whereby his prophecies could not be tested by those who stood to hear him (cf. Deut. 13:1–18), a preterist view of Jesus’s words looks to the first century to see an impending judgment on Jerusalem in his own generation. In the days ahead, I will show from Scripture why this is a faithful reading.
But for now, it should be evident that if a preterist reading holds up, it resolves the problem of the skeptics and as I will show, it also provides a better foundation for the imminent return of Christ. For ironically, in all the ways that Dispensationalists call for the imminent return of Christ, it is only the imminent rapture that they can look. On their reading of the New Testament, there remains many events between today and the last day. And thus, while they can speak extensively about the imminence of Christ, it is actually a deeply-restricted imminence.
By contrast, I will show why a preterist reading is more faithful to the text of Scripture and why it actually serves to protect and promote a real sense that Christ can return at any time. For in fact, all the language of nearness in the Gospels, Epistles, and Revelation came to fulfillment by 70 AD. And from that point on, the world and all of its nations have been served a notice, that unless you repent and believe, they too will experience the judgment of God.
Salvation and Judgment Until the End
Today is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2), but as with Jerusalem, the salvation that goes to the world is given to prepare sinners for the day of judgment. And because Christ is even now reigning on high, there is a real sense in which he has already begun to judge the world, even as he will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Therefore, to deny a futurist reading of the New Testament to Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse does not deny his later return or the final judgment. If anything, it actually secures it and calls the sinner to repent and believe the gospel before the judgment falls on them and their land, even as it did on Jerusalem. And even more, by dealing faithfully with Jesus words about events in his own generation, it takes away the arguments used by skeptics to reject Christ.
In all, these opening reflections on the doctrine of Christ’s imminence help us to see at least three ways to consider Christ’s words. Next time we will pick the word parousia itself, to see what it means in its biblical usage. And from there we can decide if it has technical meaning for Christ’s second coming, or if something else is going on. Stay tuned.
For His Glory and your joy in Jesus,
Pastor David
[1] John Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 128–33."The prophecies in the Old Testament concerning he first coming of Christ—His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection—were all fulfilled literally" (Charles Ryries, Dispensationalism Today, 86–89).
[2] He defines moderate preterism like this: “Many future prophecies in the NT have already been fulfilled. Some crucial prophecies have not yet been fulfilled.” This is not the same as “hyper-preterism,” which sees everything fulfilled in the first century.
These questions are just a few of the ones I want to address here and in the next few weeks. For if the imminent return of Christ is a precious doctrine to you (as it should be), then ironically, some of the most popular views on eschatology, especially those related to Dispensationalism, actually undermine the doctrine of Christ’s imminence, even as they heighten speculation about what must happen before his return.
Pursuing this doctrine—the imminent return of Christ—I will consider the places in the New Testament that speak of Christ’s nearness, and I will attempt to show you that the best way to read those texts is not as prophecies pointing to events thousands of years into the future. Instead, the best way to consider the language of imminence in the Gospels, the Epistles, and Revelation is to see the promises of Christ “coming” (parousia) as being fulfilled in 70 AD.
Such an early fulfillment does not deny the future coming of Christ. Rather, it clears the way for Christ to come at any time. To say it differently, if I am reading the New Testament correctly, then it supports his imminent return. But it supports this doctrine in ways that might be different than you have heard, especially, if you have heard them explained with a Dispensational timeline.
So, in what follows let offer one argument in four parts.
- I will outline two problems that come from delaying coming of Christ.
- I will explain why the word parousia (coming / presence) should not be understood as a technical term for the Second Coming, but should be defined as simply the presence or coming arrival of the Lord.
- I will review New Testament the passages that speak of Christ’s nearness.
- I will tie these strands together to offer a view of Christ’s imminent return that is based upon a partial preterist reading of the New Testament.
Two Problems with Delaying Christ’s Parousia
In The Last Days According to Jesus (1998), R. C. Sproul begins his book by discussing Betrand Russell’s rejection of the Christian faith. Russell (1872-1970) was an atheistic philosopher, who rejected the God of the Bible. Yet, as Sproul points out, Russell took very seriously the claims of Christ and his coming kingdom. Sprouls observes,
One of Russell’s chief criticisms of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is that Jesus was wrong with respect to the timing of his future return. At issue for Russell is the time-frame reference of these prophecies. Russell charges that Jesus failed to return during the time-frame he had predicted. (13)
On this basis, Russell dismissed Christ. And he is not alone. Albert Schweitzer, Rudolph Bultmann and “a multitude of highly learned specialists in the field of biblical studies” (14) have also looked at the way Jesus spoke about his return and decided since he did not make good on his promises that he is not worth believing. Sproul himself, who was one of the greatest defenders of the Bible’s inerrancy, was trained in a seminary where “much of the criticism leveled against the trustworthiness of Scripture was linked to questions regarding biblical eschatology” (15).
Historically, Dispensationalism flourished in the early twentieth century because it believed the Bible, defended its divine inspiration and authority, and maintained a strong belief in the supernatural—including the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and his future return. And significantly, Dispensationalists argued for the imminent return of Christ and defined his imminent return in terms related to the Rapture.
Still, the imminent return of Christ in the rapture is not the same thing as his final return, when "Christ judges the living and the dead", as the Apostles' Creed frames it. Instead, the Dispensational doctrine of the imminent return of Christ is keyed to the first of many events (e.g., the rapture, the tribulation, the millennium, etc.) that lead up the eternal state. There, Christ separates the sheep and the goats and makes all things new in the new heaven and new earth. Thus, in response to the critics who denied the Bible and other Christians who understood the church age to be the millennium, Dispensationalists rightly defended the veracity of the Bible and they continued to hold to a doctrine of the Lord’s imminent return. Yet, in making the case of Christ’s imminence to be anything beyond the first century, they are forced to break one of their cardinal virtues—namely, the literal interpretation of Scripture.
Reading With the Grain of Scripture
As John Walvoord explains in his book, Millennial Kingdom, the "literal method" of interpretation is the standard for all Dispensationalists.[1] Yet, as the critical scholars point out, a literal reading of Christ’s prophecies about a near return is difficult to believe. For how can Christ say that he is coming soon (Rev. 22:20) or in this generation (Matt. 24:31), when in fact the first century came to an end, and Jesus had not returned visibly, bodily, or physically? Even more, now that it has been two millennia since he ascended to heaven, how can we read Jesus’s words as being factual?
Of course, the skeptic’s solution to the eschatological statements of Jesus is to deny the claims entirely and to charge the Bible (and Jesus!) with errors. Christ said he would come soon; he didn’t; and so he must have been wrong. For the Christian, this rejection of God’s Word is deadly to the faith. And it is not necessary, either. For as we will see, dismissal of Jesus’s claims is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what he said, combined with an attempt to make Jesus’s plain speech mean something else.
For in fact, one of the more common ways to resolve the eschatological speech of Jesus is to cast Jesus’s words into the far future. For example, John Walvoord (1910–2002), a well-known scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary, offered three age-old and/or futuristic explanations for explaining Matthew 24:34 (“This generation shall not pass, until all these things be fulfilled”).
First, he suggests that “this generation” might mean the race of the Jews; or, second, it might mean “this age,” where the word “generation” stands in for a long period of time. In both instances, the generation of the Jews or the long period of this age will continue until the second coming. Then third, he offers his own view, wherein he concludes that the generation in view “is not the generation to whom Christ is speaking, but the generation to whom the signs will become evident.”
Thus, by means of forwarding Jesus’s words from the days of his first advent to the days of his second, Walvoord solves (so he thinks) the riddle of Jesus' imminent promise. By Walvoord’s light, Jesus did not claim to come in his own generation—meaning something in the first century. Accordingly, the skeptics have no place to reject this claim or anything else.
This is but one example of the ways that Jesus’s imminent language has been protected from skeptics who demand a more natural reading. But is this the best way to interpret what Jesus is saying? Is Jesus really describing events thousands of years in the future, when his own death was days away? To answer that question, we need to look more carefully at the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21). And then we also need to consider how Jesus’s own interpretation of the Prophets is fulfilled in his own day, before taking Jesus words as pointing far into the future.
Why (Partial) Preterism Is Better Than Futurism
Now, to return to R. C. Sproul: He does not follow the futurist reading of the Olivet Discourse or any other part of the New Testament. Instead, he argues for a preterist reading. To be more specific, he calls for a “moderate preterist” reading, which does not deny the fact the “some crucial prophecies have not yet been fulfilled” (24).[2] Still, as I will show in Parts 2 and 3, the most natural (and even literal) way to read Jesus’s words about his imminent “coming” are found by means of seeing the ways Jesus fulfilled Old Testament promises to bring judgment upon Jerusalem—a reality that came in 70 AD.
This is why the approach that Sproul makes, and that I will make too, is called (partial or moderate) preterism. Instead of reading Jesus’s words as direct prophecies to some later period of time, whereby his prophecies could not be tested by those who stood to hear him (cf. Deut. 13:1–18), a preterist view of Jesus’s words looks to the first century to see an impending judgment on Jerusalem in his own generation. In the days ahead, I will show from Scripture why this is a faithful reading.
But for now, it should be evident that if a preterist reading holds up, it resolves the problem of the skeptics and as I will show, it also provides a better foundation for the imminent return of Christ. For ironically, in all the ways that Dispensationalists call for the imminent return of Christ, it is only the imminent rapture that they can look. On their reading of the New Testament, there remains many events between today and the last day. And thus, while they can speak extensively about the imminence of Christ, it is actually a deeply-restricted imminence.
By contrast, I will show why a preterist reading is more faithful to the text of Scripture and why it actually serves to protect and promote a real sense that Christ can return at any time. For in fact, all the language of nearness in the Gospels, Epistles, and Revelation came to fulfillment by 70 AD. And from that point on, the world and all of its nations have been served a notice, that unless you repent and believe, they too will experience the judgment of God.
Salvation and Judgment Until the End
Today is the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2), but as with Jerusalem, the salvation that goes to the world is given to prepare sinners for the day of judgment. And because Christ is even now reigning on high, there is a real sense in which he has already begun to judge the world, even as he will come again to judge the living and the dead.
Therefore, to deny a futurist reading of the New Testament to Jesus' words in the Olivet Discourse does not deny his later return or the final judgment. If anything, it actually secures it and calls the sinner to repent and believe the gospel before the judgment falls on them and their land, even as it did on Jerusalem. And even more, by dealing faithfully with Jesus words about events in his own generation, it takes away the arguments used by skeptics to reject Christ.
In all, these opening reflections on the doctrine of Christ’s imminence help us to see at least three ways to consider Christ’s words. Next time we will pick the word parousia itself, to see what it means in its biblical usage. And from there we can decide if it has technical meaning for Christ’s second coming, or if something else is going on. Stay tuned.
For His Glory and your joy in Jesus,
Pastor David
[1] John Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 128–33."The prophecies in the Old Testament concerning he first coming of Christ—His birth, His rearing, His ministry, His death, His resurrection—were all fulfilled literally" (Charles Ryries, Dispensationalism Today, 86–89).
[2] He defines moderate preterism like this: “Many future prophecies in the NT have already been fulfilled. Some crucial prophecies have not yet been fulfilled.” This is not the same as “hyper-preterism,” which sees everything fulfilled in the first century.
Posted in Sunday school
Recent
The Time is Near (Part 1): Eschatological Imminence in the New Testament
July 17th, 2026
Your Position in Christ vs. Your Condition in Christ
July 10th, 2026
America at 250: What Kind of Nation Were You? And What Kind of Nation Will You Be?
July 2nd, 2026
Last Days in the New Testament
June 26th, 2026
The Latter Days
June 17th, 2026
Archive
2026
January
February
March
April
May
June
2025
January
April
August
September
November
2024
April
May
August
November
2023
February
September
2022
February
April
September
2021
August
September