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 think the 3 groups is logical amongst several Scriptures. But, so what? Is that of great crucial importance in our issues on the table at present?

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Though our missionary efforts have also been in our favor.

[ArmyTeach]

Merry Christmas and AMEN.

[MississippiMan]

I agree. Anything other than a straightforward interpretation of these issues requires all manner of tortured logic and illogic. OTOH, the straightforward interpretation meshes easily, beautifully, and perfectly on SO many fronts. Take a look at Daniel 12:4...

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, [even] to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Could anything possibly sound any more like our present time and the past century? Within less than a hundred years we went from horse-and-buggy to putting a man on the moon. How about the Internet, and the staggering body of knowledge it represents? As little as fifty years ago, today's state of technology would not have seemed remotely possible. The expansion of knowledge is unlike anything in history, as is the frantic pace of modern life.

MM

[CyberAnt]

Yes, because if you know who the 3 groups are - you have a better chance of "rightly dividing the truth" - and keeping your "end time doctrine" straight.

GOD has a different relationship with each group.

[Quix]

ABSOLUTELY! THX.

[Quix]

TRUE.

No trouble agreeing with that.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

The Bible teaches that the Anti-Christ will come from the revived Roman Empire (present-day European Union; the member nations of which were all part of the old Roman Empire.)

Since I believe in the pre-Tribulation rapture, I believe that the Anti-Christ will be revealed after born-again believers are taken out of the earth. He will be an extremely charismatic, captivating individual who will come to power on a peace platform. He negotiates a peace contract between Israel and the rest of the world that will ostensibly be for seven years but actually only lasts for three and a half years before the "kings of the north" march on Israel for the purpose of destroying her.

Since the prophetic clock began ticking when Israel became a nation, and the prophecies for the time just before the return of the true Christ are now occurring, I believe the Anti-Christ is alive and well and waiting to take his place on the world stage.

[Baraonda]

"GOD made a NEW covenant."

So, the fables tell us.

[Baraonda]

s/b: So the fables tell us.

[Baraonda]

The book of Hebrew makes it very clear that there was an end put to the covenant.

...because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. (Hebrews 8:6-7, 9-10)

Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God wil be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it...

Just wanted to mention it for the record. To me the OT is a bunch of myths and fables. And, the perpetuation of them is one of the biggest lies told to humanity.

[Quix]

It's conceivable to me--probable, even--that the puppet masters running things behind the scenes globally toward a global government now and for the last many decades . . . who have divided the world up into 10 regions to supercede national boundaries . . .

these puppet masters are from the old Roman empire. The 10 regions they have divided the world up in could conceivably be the 10 nation confederacy.

We shall see.

BTW, I won't lose my faith if the AC appears before the Rapture.

Hope he doesn't.

[Quix]

No fables.

But Paul makes very clear that the New Covenant doesn't destroy God's working out the old one with Blood Israel.

[Quix]

The whole counsel of the whole of Scripture clarifies what you posted.

No fables.

Study of the prophecies fulfilled about Christ alone--and now Israel--would convince most rational, fair-minded thinking sorts of people who honestly researched them out thoroughly enough.

[chronic_loser]

I don't think of any conclusive reason that Dan would be wholesale excluded forever. But it's been a while since I read those Scriptures.>>

actually, your memory is correct. there is no mention anywhere of Dan being excluded. The reason why you havent read those scriptures is because there ain't any! So, you are left with a recounting of "blood Israel" (nice pithy way to say what u are trying to say, by the way, think I will snag it as a term...., thanks) which LEAVES OUT A TRIBE.

So why is all this important? In one sense, it is not. Some of the sweetest brothers in Christ I know believe as you, yet I love them and they me.
Some of my non-chiliast brothers charge that all the focus on the "end time events" takes away from the focus on Christ, the power of the gospel to cleanse and empower us, and our filial position as sons. I would counter that those who believe as I do often lose the focus ourselves in a dialogue such as this, as our egos become more important than the truth, and we "neglect the weightier matters" so that I can be seen as the triumphant theologue, blah blah blah.
On the other hand, I have embraced what is sometimes called "covenant" theology (One plan, One people, One promise, One program). It has changed the way I view the entire bible, but especially the Old Testament. I see the whole scripture about "Him and Us" rather than "Him and them, Him and us, and Him and them again." It has made me love Christ more, and THAT is the only reason it is worth writing what I am about to write.

I am left with three possibilities here re: "blood Israel" in Rev 7. Perhaps there is one I have missed, but this is all I see at present:

1) The writer made a mistake
2) Dan is cursed and excluded
3) This is not "blood Israel" at all which is being referred to

I assume we can reject 1) out of hand, as any first century Jew/Christian knows who are the 12 tribes, much less the Holy Spirit would know and not be confused That leaves us with 3) (my position) or 2), which is the position of Chas Ryrie, and many prominent dispensationalists. That is not to say that there ARE no other positions, just that I can't figure out how to interpret this passage in any more than these three ways. My problem with Ryrie is that he takes a position that is a) unbiblical - since no such curse was pronounced on Dan and b) internally inconsistent with his own theological position with is "Israel means (blood) Israel" and that the promises of God must be fulfilled. He fudges here. If Dan can be cut off from the covenant, so can the rest of the tribes, and your whole hermeneutical bedrock goes right out the window.

Of course, if the promises of God to Israel in the Old Testament are bound to "blood" Israel, we are faced with a problem. Either we have to reconstitute the geopolitical Hebrew nation, reinstitute temple worship (ABHORRENT!!!!..."TETELESTAI"), and the whole dispensational gaggle of events, or we have what he specifically tells us in Romans 9. Not all (blood) Israel is really Israel (Romans 9:6-8), but the "children of the promise" are the TRUE Israel, and the promises have always concerned THEM (us). He then segueways into a talk about election, but the key issue is not election, but rather the fact that God's promises to Israel HAVE been fulfilled in the true Israel.

The only reason I can see to insist that "Israel means (blood) Israel" is to impose a hermeneutic (Literal whenever possible) that the scripture itself rejects. "Scripture interprets scripture" should always trump "plain speech whenever possible."

However, as a non-chiliast (sorta), I have to commend the dispensationalists on one thing. You guys yearn for the reinclusion of the branches back to the root in a way that is convicting to me. So, here's praying for a Christmas that is full of Christ, a yearning for "the times of the Gentiles to be fulfilled" and a regrafting of the blood Jews back into the Covenant, and...., most importantly, the "return of the King."

Merry Christmas

[safisoft]

the word "Jews" is used beginning in 2Kings 16:6

The word is y'hudim. It does not mean 'Jews' as the word is used today. It quite simply means 'men from the Tribe of Judah'. People known as 'Jews' today are not just from the tribe of Judah. The word 'Jews' refering to other than the tribe of Judah was not in common use until after the completion of the 'Old Testament'. the word "church" is used beginning in Matt 16:18

The word is ekklesia. It means 'called out assembly'. The word is used a lot in the 'Old Testament' as well. In the Septuagint, the word ekklesia is first used in Deuteronomy 4:10. The idea that the 'church' as an entity did not exist until Acts 2, may be common, but it does not jibe with Scripture. In Acts 7:38, Stephen refers to it existing long before Acts 2:

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us

This is refering to the People of God assembled at Sinai, hearing God's voice. The English word 'church' was chosen by the King James translators in 1611 to bolster James' position as head of the Church of England. Prior to that time, every English version of the Bible (Wyclyffe, Tyndale, Bishops etc.) used 'Assembly' or 'Congregation'. The people of God are the people of God - always have been, always will be.

the word "nations" is used beginning in Acts 14:16

The word is very common in both the 'Old' and 'New' - in fact the idea that Israel was to be a light to the 'Nations' is a principle theme in Deuteronomy 4 which says,

Deuteronomy 4:4-10: But you who held fast to HaShem your God are alive today, every one of you. 'Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as HaShem my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. 'For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as HaShem our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this Torah which I set before you this day? Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren, especially concerning the day you stood before HaShem your God in Horeb, when HaShem said to me, 'Gather the people to Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.'

[safisoft]

Just wanted to mention it for the record. To me the OT is a bunch of myths and fables. And, the perpetuation of them is one of the biggest lies told to humanity.

Anyone who would quote from Hebrews and then say that does not understand the meaning of the phrase, "and the LORD spoke...".

Your anti-Semitic bias is simply disguised as a religious position.

[taxesareforever]

[QUIX CONTINUED: I realize taxes, that your "Bible" must read something as the above. But I suggest you toss it out and get a more authentic one.]

Sometimes people read into Scripture things that they want it to say. There really is no reason to discuss this issue with you since you utilize as your basis the Old Testament which has been fulfilled by the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The covenant established by God in the Old Testament is same as the one today. God declared that He would be the God of those who believed in Him just as He told Abraham. That is still in effect today. The Jews who do not believe in Christ are not in this covenant anymore than the unbeliever is. God's covenant is between Him and His people, and His people are Christians.

[chronic_loser]

It is clear from Scripture that the leaders in eterenity are headed by 12--one from each of the 12 tribes...

Which 12 tribes are those? (Hint: they are in Revelation 7)

Please list them for us, if you would.

[Quix]

Too crowded with other things for a point by point.

Appreciate your tone and kind words.

Certianly Holy Spirit didn't make a mistake.

Dan may be excluded. What do I know.

Certainly, to my mind--and reading--and nothing you said hinders my conclusions in the least--Blood Israel is represented in the Saved at the end. I think Rev 7 makes that clear in the 144,000

I don't question what God does or doesn't do with Dan. HE'S THE BOSS. He may have chosen to avoid making that abundantly clear for whatever reasons.

There's plenty of Scriptures clearly outlining to me quite vividly that Blood Israel is included in those who acknowledge Christ as Messiah; King of Kings and Lord of Lords at the end.

Just the ONE issue of the 24 thrones mentioned in Scripture would be enough to convince me of that.

And a Blessed, overcoming, redemptive, fulfilling, abundant CHRISTmas to you and yours, too.