The Futurist's Big Delemma

C. S. Lewis is considered by many to be the premier Christian apologist of the twentieth century. In reference to Matthew 24:34 and similar passages, he stated the apparent problem thusly:

“Say what you like, the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things are done.’ And He was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.”

Skeptics of various stripes weigh in on this too. They point to several passages by Jesus and his apostles to argue that Jesus did not return in the time frame He predicted (in his own generation)—so He was a false prophet. For example, Albert Schweitzer, the 1952 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for philosophy, in his book, THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS, made this charge. Bertrand Russell also made such an accusation. Russell was one of the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century and the Nobel Prize winner for literature in 1950. He published a pamphlet entitled “Why I Am Not a Christian.” In the pamphlet he explained that one of the reasons he rejected Christianity was that Jesus failed to return as He promised. Concerning Jesus, Russell wrote:

“He certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. . . . and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living.”

Jewish and Muslim critics make this charge as well. Consider this attack by the group Jews for Judaism:

“No amount of Christian theological acrobatics will ever solve the problems engendered by the historical reality that a promised imminent fulfillment made two thousand years ago did not occur as expected by the New Testament. Simply stated, Jesus is never coming back, not then, not now, not ever.”

The dilemma has tentacles in every direction. It arises with the cults too. Mormons use the notion that Jesus was a false prophet in order to excuse Joseph Smith for HIS wrong prophecies. (Since Jesus was wrong, Joseph Smith can be excused.)

If Jesus was a false prophet, he could not be divine. He could not have even been a reliable teacher! Skeptics charge that the writers of the New Testament, who recorded the teachings of Jesus and received their instruction from our Lord himself (either first or second hand)—were also false teachers. Thus they could not have been inspired, and their status is reduced to a confused band of followers of another false Messiah.

If these charges against Christianity are valid for the pervasive and keynote issue of eschatology, the reliability of the rest of the New Testament comes into serious question. The Christian faith rests squarely on the reliability of the promises of Jesus. If the New Testament and the words of Jesus are not trustworthy, our hope is misplaced; heaven and salvation through Jesus are cruel illusions.

Christians, you cannot just stick your head in the sand on this. There is only one legitimate resolution to this problem—and it is not some imagined “dual fulfillment.” The Bible only speaks of one Parousia. If Jesus was a true prophet, his Parousia (“second coming”) is not what most modern Christians and skeptics think it was, and Jesus did in fact come in clouds of glory in conjunction with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. His return "in judgment" was just like similar comings of God in the Old Testament.

Mathew 24:30Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

You know those stars (signs) up there tell quite a story. And when one observes them at the time of the ‘Feasts’, they tell an even more interesting story..

For instance, while Israel is observing the Spring Feasts nowadays, they do so while the sun is traveling through the ‘Two Fish’ sign in the heavens.

And when Israel is observing the Fall Feasts,they do so while the sun is traveling through ‘The Woman’ sign in ‘heavens’..

Spring-Fishers of men?
Fall- Bride- Church?

Just like the New Testament teaches.. A ‘church age’?

A couple thousand years ago,those same Feast Times (Spring and Fall), there were different ‘signs’ in the heavens at the Spring and Fall Feasts-

Spring- it was the The Ram (Passover Lamb?)
Fall- it was the Scales or a Balance (Atonement?)

Those signs in the heavens seem to signify the Old Testament ‘age’.

Amazing, Right? Like the plan was placed up there in His Sky..but scripture does tell us they are for signs and appointed times- not just days and years...

The world is getting closer to a change of those first two signs (two fish in spring and woman in the fall at Feast time) respectively, in the future.

There will come a time when Israel will be observing the Spring Feasts when the sun will be traveling through ‘the Water Bearer’ sign in the heavens..(known as Aquarius to the worldly)

And for the Fall Feasts? The sun will be traveling through the ‘Lion’ (known as Leo to the worldly)

Spring Feasts-’water bearer- I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh’?
Fall Judah?- Lion from the Tribe of Judah

All above our heads as a witness to the whole world for what has come, what is today, and what is to come..

For those with eyes to see..just need to know where and when to look..

Were the wiseman any smarter or did they just know where and when to look when they were looking for the signs?

The sign of Jonah happened to Israel in 70 AD because they rejected Him and did not repent with His teaching, unlike Ninevah who listened to Jonah. A greater than Jonah came personally in the form of His Son and Israel rejected Him.
Jerusalem had an ‘end’ in 70 AD.

And frankly, as long as Jerusalem of today rejects His Son and holds gay pride parades (like they do), they are just Babylon antichrists.
(According to scripture definition of ‘antichrist’)

And maybe we will see something happen 70 years from 1948 which would be a fitting time for Babylon captivity- and whether the fig tree that has leaves may have no fruit)

The beauty of biblical prophecy is it seems that it can all have a past,present and future application..three fold.
And most certainly natural and spiritual applications-;
Just like the Exodus does for every believer on a journey to the promised land- if they are to understand what 30,60,100 means in His Parable of the Sower (the hint is in Exodus) one would do well to study what Israel did.

His Creation and His Word says we are ‘moving’ towards a new time. An ‘age’ is closer each day to ending.
But it can be a beginning at the same time for any person who has eyes to see and ears to hear.

And if the sign of Man appearing in heaven -Mathew 24:30 is a literal sign(just like the sign of the woman clothed with the sun and moon under her feet(Revelation 12 happens over our heads, literally), it is best we look up - our redemption draws near..

Less we get caught asleep and not watching- and He comes like a thief in the night.

But each can have their own theories and beliefs. Thousands of denominations are proof of that..

I had dealt with this with another Lewis detractor showing him via “copy and paste” how the quote got lifted out of the context of a larger apologetic. The passage was not a “one off” statement declaring the Bible to be wrong or the verse “embarrassing”. Now the statement in it’s context which shows Lewis continues to be truly orthodox!

“Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”
It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt. Unless the reporter were perfectly honest he would never have recorded the confession of ignorance at all; he could have had no motive for doing so except a desire to tell the whole truth. And unless later copyists were equally honest they would never have preserved the (apparently) mistaken prediction about “this generation” after the passage of time had shown the (apparent) mistake. This passage (Mark 13:30-32) and the cry “Why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) together make up the strongest proof that the New Testament is historically reliable. The evangelists have the first great characteristic of honest witnesses: they mention facts which are, at first sight, damaging to their main contention.

C.S. Lewis, “The World’s Last Night” (1960)

As you see Lewsis poses the apparent contradiction then solves it by stating Christ’s assertion”Of that hour only the Father knows!”

So yes it is still safe to read CS Lewis and to gain strength from his apo;ogetics!

The argument was that CS Lewis had some how had presented Christ as some how displaying that he was less than divine and and to prove it, one small passage was lifted out(presumably by a ‘gotcha’ type critic) of a larger paragraph to show that Lewis was some how besmirching Christ. By placing the quote back into it’s context, it shows that Lewis was not trying to show a Christ that was not imperfect but rather a Christ that was simply subordinate to the will of His Father, even in matters such as knowledge of the exact timings of “the end”.

His whole argument does have some issues as you point out but that wasn’t the question I was attempting to address; that being the dangers of lifting a single idea/line out of it’s contextual nesting place, twisting it’s meaning and then attacking the motives of the author based on such contextual mismanagement.(We all know that progressives are expert at this in the political realm, so you know what I’m getting at)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.