Why Christ has Not Returned

Oldest known image of the Apostle Peter (4th Century)

Why Christ has Not Returned

A Revision of the Predictive Prophetic Model

Critics typically give Christians a drubbing over the fact that the Apostles believed that Christ would return within a generation and he did not and the Apostles never backed off. That kind of drubbing was attempted on this blog within the last two years. While there have been a number of defensive responses that Christians make to this challenge, not well received by critics, Peter Enns has given play time on his website to a new, persuasive and cogent view. The source reference is at the end of this article. 

The Traditional Model of Predictive Prophecy

Prophecy is not always predictive. It takes on many different forms. In general, it refers to inspired speaking or messaging. The topic here is then the subcategory of predictive prophecy. The model for this begins with a person who claims to be a prophet. Typically, the prophet has credentials. He is not just someone off the street but is a part of an ecclesiastical infrastructure that makes him eligible to be heard by the relevant body of followers whether it be the Children of Israel in the OT or a modern church congregation of apocalyptic Millerites. The formula is simple: The prophet proclaims an event to take place in the future and everyone waits for it to happen with various outcomes for the individual and the group. But this is a simplistic to a fault when compared to the more complex Biblical model. 

The Biblical Model of Conditional Predictive Prophecy

The Biblical model of predictive prophecy does not represent a highly systematized process. It originates in the active engagement of God with people and as such may take on many different dynamic features. Initially, the model may seem to be characterized by ad hoc responses. But it is not genuinely ad hoc because “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the Age.” This ad hoc quality, of course, is problematic to legalists and atheists who require a code or body of regulation that rigidly governs the process. Although the model is not highly systematized, a theme that runs through many of the Biblical cases found in this category is that of conditionality. The logical construct is:

If you do A, then B will happen. (Conditional; B is a predicted event)

If not A, then not B. (Denying the Antecedent; B is a predicted event)

A classical example of conditional prophecy is found in Jeremiah 18:5-10. The model has several attributes. Prophecies explain what can happen not what will happen. If you do A, then B will happen. Usually, in the OT context, A is a bad behavior and B is a bad outcome. For instance, “If you worship idols, the Babylonians will conquer you.” But the propositions could be otherwise. Prophecy does not have as its principal goal the prediction of the future. Rather, it leverages the future to effect change in the current behavior of the hearers. And if the hearers repent, like the Assyrians did at the words of Jonah, then we have Denying the Antecedent shown above. While prophecy can be a future agenda delivered with no qualifications it typically is conditional.

Why Christ has not Returned 

The Bible states explicitly why Christ did not return as expected. Peter spoke about this to some Jews in Jerusalem:

Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of universal restoration (apokatastasis) that God announced long ago through his holy prophets. (Acts 3:19-21, NRSV)

Also:

“Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for <and hastening> the coming of the day of God” (2 Pet 3.11-12).

The return of Christ is conditioned by the conduct of the people of God. There are a number of implications that we may draw from this. These words were spoken by Peter early in his ministry. This means that the disciples knew early on that the Parousia was conditional. My guess is that the conditions were such that they also knew that it was likely not to occur as expected. Paul for a while engaged in hopeful thinking but later changed his view. The events listed in Matthew 24 are what God offered if certain conditions were met. The conditions were not met. The apokatastasis has not been inaugurated. (Sidebar: I believe that the events of Matthew 24 can be divided into events that are firmly embedded in determinate chronology and those that do not have a chronological qualification. The fixed events happened in 70 AD. The variable events are yet to occur at an indeterminate date. It takes a spreadsheet to sort this out and I have never done this for fear of contracting Victor Houteff Syndrome.)

In view of Acts 3:19-21, there are some viewpoints that should be abandoned. One is the idea that there are six millennia allocated to human civilization and the seventh millennium will begin the Kingdom of God. No matter who this is attributed to, Elijah or others, it is an abnegation of Acts 3:19-21. No mere tradition of whatever provenance should be permitted to displace scripture. Also, the idea that the Apostles experienced an early version of the Millerite Great Disappointment of 1844 because Christ did not return in their generation is fallacious. Peter and the other Apostles knew what the score was as mentioned above. But hope will burn for a while before it succumbs to experience. Another spurious idea is that imposing conditions implies that God is capricious – he leaves himself an out. This, rather, shows that God has granted a measure of free will to humans and is willing to work with their exercise of that free will. His expressed willingness to respond with changes in circumstances does not cancel the scripture that says “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the Age.” Acts 3:19-21 is especially difficult for someone who stands up and says “I am a prophet and Christ is returning next Monday.” The professed prophet would have to go beyond mere pronouncement and demonstrate that the conditions of Act 3:19 -21 had been either fulfilled or lifted. Unless the professed prophet can explain plausibly why the Biblical conditioning has somehow been abrogated, he can only add to the Biblical requirements creating a compound condition where all conditions must be fulfilled for Christ to return.

False Prophets and Conditionality

Some will contend that if prophecy can be qualified there is no way in which a false prophet may be adjudged to be a false prophet. The false prophet can always say that the reason why the prophecy failed is because a condition was not met. And Deuteronomy 18:20-22 is rendered ineffectual because the false prophet has a “back door. “

Pragmatically, Case 1 below is straightforward and Case 2 can permit an escape.

Case One - A Simple, Unqualified Prediction: If the supposed prophet simply makes a prediction without any qualifications, and it doesn’t happen, then it is easy to see that Deuteronomy 18 principle is relevant.

Case Two – A Conditioned Prediction: The supposed prophet says that “If you repent of giving small offerings, Christ will return next Thursday.” Every congregant repents and increases offerings. Christ doesn’t return. The professed prophet says that Christ did not come because some did not repent. The principle of Deuteronomy 18 may still be applied but the case does require a more complex discovery. If discovery reveals nothing than he prophet cannot be charged. This latter circumstance is an escape.

The point of the small case study above is that even though there may be conditions attached to a prophecy sufficient discovery can result in a just determination on the validity of the prophet as a prophet. Deuteronomy 18 should not be applied anyway because it is part of a superseded covenant and the ministration of death. Some administrative rule based on Deuteronomy 18 might be applied instead. In the formation of such an administrative rule, it should be noted that Deuteronomy 18:15-22 was apparently written to the entire congregation of Israel. The congregation had the burden of responsibility to resolve this situation – doing the discovery, making the judgment and enforcing the verdict. They were not to be just passive victims.

Conclusion

Conditional prophecy is a thematic formulation used in both the OT and NT. Conditioning explains why Biblical prophecy does not always conform to historical reality. Conditioning can be manipulated by those claiming to be prophets but a perceptive congregation will be able to assess this and react appropriately to it. It should be added that this is a pragmatic view. On the theoretical side, it is not clear that the role of prophet for purposes of prediction is an agency used by God at this time.

Reference: Enns, Peter, “On Why Jesus Hasn’t Come Back Yet (And the Answer May Shock You),” Web Article: https://peteenns.com/on-why-jesus-hasnt-come-back-yet/

This article is a work of opinion. I am not a theologian. I am a Christian lay-member and a recovering Armstrongist.

-- Non_Ecliptic_Orbit