When will Jesus return? Joseph Farah details evidence pointing to Christ coming back to Earth

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, December 22, 2004 | Joseph Farah

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

---

---

When will Jesus return?

---

Posted: December 22, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah

---

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

"For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, On the throne of David and over his kingdom, To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness. From then on and forevermore ..."

– Isaiah 9:6-7 (NASB)

As we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ this week and prepare for 2005 next week, I can't help but think about how close we must be to the Second Coming – when the Lord will return for His church and personally rule over the Earth for 1,000 years.

Oh, I know, some of you don't believe in such things. You think it's just a bunch of silly superstition. Even some Christians don't believe in the Second Coming. Many prefer I stick to writing about news events of the physical world rather than arcane spiritual matters.

But, as a journalist, I can't ignore hard evidence – no matter where it may lead me. And the more I study the prophetic scriptures of the Holy Bible and look at the condition of our world today, the more convinced I become that we are nearing that time. In fact, I think we are very close.

For just as Jesus' virgin birth in Bethlehem was foretold by the Hebrew prophets hundreds of years earlier, so, too, was His return to Earth predicted. The only question is when.

The most dramatic evidence for His imminent return our generation has witnessed was the rebirth of the nation of Israel more than 50 years ago. The Jews, God's chosen people, were, as prophesied, scattered over the whole earth for nearly two millennia beginning shortly after Jesus' death on the cross. Yet, in my opinion, the scriptures leave no doubt that the Jewish state would exist once again before He returned.

Interestingly, Orthodox Jews have long taught that the world would last for 6,000 years before the Messiah would come and usher in a 1,000-year period of restful human history. Since God created the world in six days, according to Genesis 1:31, and rested on the seventh day, according to Genesis 2:1, they reasoned the world's history would climax the same way. They cite Psalms 90:4, which says: "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by."

Likewise, Christians have looked to II Peter 3:8: "But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

The early church understood this "six-day theory" of world history. It was widely accepted teaching for the first three centuries of the church. From the time of Adam, we've got genealogical records to show that 4,000 years passed until the time of Christ. From Jesus' time until the present age represents another 2,000 years for a total of 6,000 years or six days.

There's also a three-day theory: Jesus rose on the third day. Would the beginning of the third millennium – or thousand-year period – not be the likely time for His return to Earth? There is even strong scriptural evidence for such a theory provided in Hosea 6:2: "After two days will he revive us: in the third day He will raise us up, and we shall live in His sight." Note that this prophecy is not about the Resurrection of Jesus – it's either about the resurrection of Israel after 2,000 years of dispersal or the physical return of the Lord.

In 1772, Edward Gibbons published "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," in which he cites early documents suggesting the Christian disciples of the first century were taught that Jesus would return after 2,000 years. We'll soon find out if they were right.

For many reasons, I believe Jesus is returning soon. But I'm especially drawn to II Timothy 3:1-5, which describes the state of the world in the "last days." Tell me if this doesn't sound like our world:

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

To me, that sounds like our world today.

Christmas represents a time of great hope for Christians. Of course, we're grateful that Jesus came about 2,000 years ago and died for our sins. Now we should be hopeful and expectant of His imminent return.

Merry Christmas. And happy birthday, Jesus.

---

[Quix]

I don't think so.

I think Scripture would have said so, if that were so.

Many expect him to be homosexual.

[eccentric]

Hey, Mel Odom's 3rd Apocalypse book is out. These books follow the Left Behind series.

[bonfire]

Good post.

[bonfire]

"Silly me, I thought this was a conservative forum, not a place for religious crazies and end-timers. Oh well, I guess we must let them play. It probably keeps them out of trouble and off the streets. So long as they don't scare the horses."

Conservatives are usually Christian. Christians believe Jesus will return. What religion are you?

[CyberAnt]

Hmmmm? I hadn't heard that before. Do you know what the date of that war was ..??

[chronic_loser]

Is that supposed to be a refutation of the a-mil position? Nope. Just a statement of my position. >>>
Thanks. However, simply citing a scripture whose interpretation is in dispute is not a "position" any more than stating "he and all his family were baptized" (the philippian jailer in Acts 16)is an argument for paedo/believer baptism. The only time I have seen people claim that a passage like this "supports their position" is when they are unaware of anything but the most surface critiques of their own position. Trust me, it has happened to me more times than I care to remember.

In that case, have you read the a-mil interpretations on this verse? If I could find one who actually interprets the verse, and does not attempt to explain it away (there is a dramatic difference) I would be interested. The ones I have thus far read spend so much time trashing the millenial folks they never actualy get around to stating a logical position on the subject.>>>
Let me recommend Clouse's book again for you. It is irenic (peaceful), non confrontative, and biblically solid. It was such a good book that there was a whole series of "dialogue" books like it on a variety of subjects. As well, I would recommend "More than Conquerors," by William Hendricksen (if still in print) for an amillenial view. A historical pre mil view that is very good is by George Eldon Ladd called "The Last Things." The best postmil book I have seen is "The Puritan Hope," but there are alot of reconstructionist types around that have a more up to date review of the best post mil stuff. My dealing with "the passage itself" has to do with WHY one would say a thousand years MUST refer to 1000 365 days periods. It is extremely hypocritical to demand that the book of Revelation be interpreted "literally" as dispensationalists are fond of doing, as they don't interpret it themselves this way, except when it comes to Revelation 20. Just for one example, when referring to the restored 12 tribes of Israel, in Revelation 7, we find that there ARE NOT 12 tribes. Instead, only 11. We find from Genesis 50 the 12 tribes: Reuben
Simeon
Levi
Judah
Zebulun
Isaachar
Dan
Gad
Ascher
Naphtali
Joseph
Benjamin
However, in Revelation 7, the author seems not to know who the 12 tribes were (I doubt this), omitting the tribe of Dan altogether and mentioning Joseph correctly and then naming Joseph's son Manasseh (not a tribe at all) TWICE by naming him as a subset of Joseph. Rather, this is a literary HINT (revelation is full of such hints) to show us that we are dealing with a book which is not written in "plain english" at all, but is full of symbolism, imagery, and clues to interpretation found elsewhere. (by the way, when Chas Ryrie was questioned re: Revelation 7 and interpreting the "plain meaning of the text" he said Dan was "omitted deliberately" because of their "apostacy".... so much for the irrevocable covenants).

In short, demanding that one interpret Revelation in "plain language" is a hermeneutic which is only selectively practiced by the millinealists, but what is more important, IT IS A HERMENEUTIC WHICH IS NOT DERIVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES, particularly this book.
When the scriptures themselves show you "you should be interpreting this set of passages in a manner consistent with the language of the text" (ie symbolically), it is wrong to say "but that is how LIBERALS explain away what they don't like int the Bible!" This may be true, but God's Word is too important for me to "protect" it by advocating a rule of interpretation that the author of Scripture itself doesn't validate in the text itself.
It is not defending the text to demand it be interpreted in a manner different than how it tells us it should be interpreted.

All that is not to say that there won't be a literal millenium. I am decidedly agnostic on that issue. If there is, please walk up to me and say "I told you so!" Either way, it will be a joy.

Merry Christmas

[maestro]

read...

[The Right Stuff]

I have not heard ANY theological theorizing about this, but what about if it means that He will come before the last baby born in 1948 dies? Given today's longevity, that might mean sometime before 2048. Just a thought.

[CyberAnt]

If you study the wedding celebration of the Jews, you get a clearer picture. Jesus said, "Only the Father knows". Using that premise, that is exactly what happens in a wedding feast. The couple is betrothed (promised to each other). The Bride gets herself ready for the grooms return - and the groom begins building their home. Jesus said, "I go to prepare a place for you". When the home is ready, the groom's father declares - it's time for the feast of the wedding.

I believe it will be thus for Jesus' return - God's perfect timing. I'm perfectly willing to allow God the priviledge of choosing the time of Jesus' return. However, because of my connection, spiritually, I am sensing that the time is near.

[Skooz]

Thanks, but I'll just believe the Word of God as it is written; NOT as some theologians torture it to fit into their particular dogma.

Although most in my church tend toward premillinealism, I share my pastor's view. He calls himself "pan-trib;" it will all pan out in the end.

I agree with you: however it works out, it will be joyous. I firmly believe that much of Scripture is meant to be completely understood only in retrospect.

Merry Christmas to you, as well.

[timestax]

[Twinkie]

Thanks for posting this e-mail. When I have heard this
rapture teaching coming from popular, well-intentioned (I suppose) preachers, it just did not seem to square up with the Word. I couldn't put the discrepancies in an orderly format, but this writer has done just that.

[sasportas]

As usual, more good insight. Thanks.

So you are the same Buggman. Then you may not know it but you are responsible for me discovering FR. You mentioned FR in one of your posts at the prophecy forum (forgot the name of it), and I checked it out. Been a Freeper ever since. I love FR. What sold me was the great percentage of Christian conservatives that post here. It is all your fault.

I seem to remember you being from Georgia. Me too originally. But that was long ago. I am an Alaskan, my home now for the last 25 years.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"When will Jesus return?"

If he's asking about the guy who maintains my property, he'll be here Friday, if he's talking about Our Savior...when we least expect him.

[Mad Mammoth]

If he's asking about the guy who maintains my property, he'll be here Friday, if he's talking about Our Savior...when we least expect him.

Well said. And I believe that while there will certainly be much trouble and tribulation in the world in the time leading up to the return of Christ, I expect that He will indeed show up totally unexpected, just when everyone thinks that we have achieved global peace and security ("peace and safety"), and that we are about to leave the bad times behind and let the good times roll again, and permanently. The world is in for a rude (and tragic) awakening on that Day.

[Quix]

i HOPE

not when

WE

least expect Him! He told us to watch and wait expectantly!

[taxesareforever]

Doesn't the thousand year reign begin AFTER the second coming? Mxxx

A day with the Lord is as a thousand years. That is where all essence of time is vanquished. Those who use Revelations, which was a vision, as their basis for Christ reigning on earth for a thousand years are certainly discounting the rest of Scripture.

[McGavin999]

OK, this is going to sound weird, but I believe that everyone should live every day as though it's the day before the second coming. If you do that, there are no worries.

[Paulus Invictus]

'But if that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son but the Father." Mark 13.32

This seems to be a clear enough as a warning that we should not speculate about when Christ's second coming will occur. Since early times, there have been thousands of predictions about the end but to date none have come about. Mark says that even Christ does not know when it will be. That it will eventually happen is a fact, but perhaps our time should be taken in preparation for His coming. I'm not ready. I doubt that anyone is. I think that when He does come, most of the world will be extremely surprised, especially the secularists and willful sinners.

[safisoft]

Sorry .. but the Holy Spirit is not resident in the believer in the Old Testament .. only the New Testament (because of Jesus).

Please provide the chapter and verse for such a statement. Try reading some of those pages to the LEFT of the man-made one that says 'New Testament' on it.

Then he remembered the days of old, Moses and his people, saying: 'Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them. Isaiah 63:11

There are 3 main groups of people on the earth - the Jews, the Nations, and the Church.

There are two groups of people on earth - God's people and the rest. Sheep and goats; wheat and tares.

Revelations is using the word "tribe", because it's not talking about the church .. it's talking about the Jews. If the word "Saints" were being used - that would be the church, because "saints" represents the words "sanctified" = meaning a born again believer.

Breathtaking! First, there is no such book as 'Revelations' - it is the book of 'The Revelation...' SINGULAR. Next, the English word 'saints' is used 35 times in the English Bible - IN THE 'OLD TESTAMENT' - Here is one especially meant for those with such views as yours. Ponder it awhile.

Yes, He loves the people; all His saints are in Your hand; they sit down at Your feet; everyone receives Your words. Moses commanded a Torah for us, a heritage of the congregation of Jacob. Deuteronomy 33:3

Now compare that to what Paul says in Ephesians 2:19:

Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.

If you read the context, it is Gentiles being grafted INTO a community of saints and members of God's household - namely Israel.

Don't try to take the Jews part .. the Ecclesia (or church) is the best part.

If you don't want the 'Jews part' I suppose you will count yourself out of the inheritance of the 'Jew' named Y'shua as well? Also, the word 'church' does not exist in the Bible. The Greek word, as you correctly stated, is the word ekklesia. It means a 'called out assembly.' That same word is used over 80 times in the 'Old Testament' - in the Septuagint, which is the version that Paul and Peter quote from.

There is one olive tree - not two.

For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. Romans 11:16-18