Biblical & Theological Issues

by W. Buzwell McNutt-

The title, “The King is Coming,” suggests that the Sovereign of the universe knows His own plan of completed redemption, that He exists today to carry out that plan, and that indeed, He is even now fulfilling it. The Lord Jesus, God the Son, came to earth to fulfill the Father’s eternal redemptive plan and we can see from the gospels that He accomplished everything He was sent to do. Based on this, we can have full assurance that He is continuing that work today and will one day return. Furthermore, the existence of God based on the moral argument challenges us to examine our relationship to Him and live holy lives, until we see Him face to face. Finally, regardless of the centuries of confusion and controversies that have surfaced about His return, Jesus promised, “I will come again.” The King, our Sovereign Lord commands that we live holy lives until He fulfills that promise.

The King is Coming

Jesus, the Divine Ambassador in the Gospel of John, has been sent by the Father (John 3:16, 34; 5:24, 37, 38; 6:29, 44), to do the will of the Father (John 5:19, 30, 36; 6:29, 38; 7:28; 8:28), given all authority by the Father (John 5:27, 43), to speak on behalf of the Father (John 7:16; 8:26, 8:28, 29). In the final days leading up to His crucifixion, the Ambassador of the Father assessed His mission and announced that He would be returning to the One who had sent Him. He had not spoken on His own initiative (John 12:49), He did not even speak in His own independent manner (John 12:50), and He declared that the one who received Him, received the One who sent Him (John 13:20). In speaking with the Father in what we call the high priestly prayer of John 17, Jesus declared His ambassadorship to be a success. He had made the Father’s name and glory known (17:6), He had spoken the Father’s words (17:8), and He had protected all that belonged to the Father (17:12).

As the Divine Ambassador, Jesus had not only fulfilled His mission, but He had also accomplished it within the Father’s timetable. At the outset of His public ministry, it was apparent Jesus knew the Father’s timing. While at the wedding feast in Cana, He spoke to His mother who was obviously requesting something that would expose His kingship prior to the appropriate time. When the wine gave out and Mary spoke to Him about it, Jesus replied, “Woman, what do I have to do with you? My hour has not yet come.” Jesus, knowing that He had been given the divine authority to call people from death to life declared, “Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,” (John 5:28). Those who opposed Him were prevented from doing Him harm because it was not the proper time, “no one seized Him, because His hour had not yet come” (John 8:20). It was during the final week of His earthly ministry that Jesus announced to the crowds why He had been sent. “Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour?’ But for this purpose I came to this hour” (John 12:27). At the appointed time, Jesus, in full harmony with the Father’s plan prayed, “Father, the hour has come: glorify Thy Son, that the Son may glorify Thee” (John 17:1).

The clarity and precision with which John describes the mission of Jesus, leaves no doubt as to who is in control. Though this article, based on the structure of the book, describes Jesus as a Divine Ambassador, John uses various names and metaphors to describe Jesus such as, Lord, Son, Lamb of God, and King. Maybe Pilate was confused as to the identity of the King of the Jews, but Jesus was not. True, His kingdom was not of this world, not. True, His kingdom was not of this world, He was and is nevertheless, King (John 18: 33-37). And as immutable as His mission and unwavering as His timing, so too is the eternal plan for His people. Believers need only to recall the intentionality, serenity, and determination with which Jesus carried out the Father’s purpose during His earthly ministry to find confidence when Jesus says, “Let not your heart be troubled . . . if I go and prepare a place for you I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:1-3.) When His people look for surety in the second coming, they need only look to what the King has already done and based on that sovereign character they will know that the King Is Coming!

The King Is Coming
That fact that Jesus takes great effort to prepare a place for those who believe in Him makes it inconceivable that He would not come back and take them there. His promise to return is so intricately linked—as are all His words—with His character and existence that for this promise not to be fulfilled would deny His very being. As the Apostles’ Creed makes plain, upon His return He will judge unbelievers, “the quick and the dead,” handing out rewards and punishments. In that great discourse on the character of faith found in Hebrews 11, the reward only comes to those who believe that God is. “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him” (Hebrews 11:6). However, upon what basis do we believe the King is? That is, by what proof do we say God exists and, for this article, what bearing does that have on His return?

Even a cursory review of the arguments for God’s existence is beyond the scope of this article. However, by setting aside the traditional arguments used to confront the materialists and confining the discussion to the Van Tillian perspective—“nothing exists unless the personal and absolute God exists”— will aid in narrowing the presentation. I do this both to avoid areas I am not qualified to discuss and because the article is targeted to the Christian interested in how the existence of God reflects on his or her behavior in light of Christ’s return.

In recent years Christian apologists have categorized the proofs for the God’s existence into four arguments; cosmological, teleological, ontological, and moral. It is this latter argument I would like to pursue for purposes that I hope will be clear by the conclusion. The concepts of morality and moral behavior are formed on the basis of the rewards and consequences.¹

Though the sociologist and the missiologist would challenge the universality of acceptable moral norms, we should not fall into the relativistic ditch on the other side of the road. Maybe the bad guy does occasionally escape with the goods to a tropical island paradise. He is, nonetheless, the bad guy. Just because he got away and lives in a place most consider ideal does not make his wicked act morally acceptable. Relativism and subjectivism cannot obliterate the fact that those who make wrong judgments have violated a basic principle that binds human beings. “Those who approve of robbery and murder are not merely mistaken, not merely odd in their emotional makeup; they are wicked. They are violating a norm which is just as real as the law of gravity.”²

Now, if we agree that there are moral norms, then that leads us to ask, where does the authority for the moral norm come from? As John Frame argues, it can only come from one of two places. “The source of absolute moral authority is either personal or impersonal.”³ Since it is illogical to think we can gain moral or ethical direction for doing what we should from impersonal matter, we must turn to the personal. Most of our orientation concerning moral values comes from our family relationships. This is an environment that should promote love, security, understanding, and wisdom for life’s complexities. The family is not the only arena in which we discover our moral bearings. In fact, the Bible directs believers to obey employers, honor governing authorities, love both neighbor and enemies, and above all to love the Lord our God. Our obligation to each of these is varied and hierarchical. A person has a higher obligation to obey the laws of his government rather than to obey his employer when ordered to falsify documents to avoid paying legal taxes. If the source for moral authority is personal and there is a hierarchy of those personal sources, then logic demands that if we are to find an absolute moral authority we must seek a personal absolute. “Moral standards, therefore, presuppose absolute moral standards, which in turn presuppose the existence of an absolute personality. In other words, they presuppose the existence of God.”⁴

What bearing does this moral argument have on the return of Christ? While a specific list could be lengthy, I will offer two general points of application. First it should clarify our relationship. We should test ourselves to be sure we know Him (2 Cor. 13:5). It should be quite sobering to recognize that by risking a true relationship with He who is the personal moral absolute one is risking eternity, because He will say on that day, “Depart from me for I never knew you” (Matt. 7:21). Second, it should have a purifying effect. In light of the cataclysmic events surrounding Christ’s return, the Apostle Peter writes, “Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the hastening the coming of the 12). The sobering fact that the King Is, that He is the highest standard of moral purity, and that one day we will all stand before Him should motivate every believer to be holy as He is holy.

The King is Coming
Confusion surrounding Christ’s return is not new. Contemporaries of Jesus, Peter, and Paul dealt with such eschatological misunderstandings as what was going to happen, when was it going to happen, and how believers are to prepare themselves (John 21:23; 2 Pet. 3:8f; 1 Thess. 4:13ff). Nevertheless, Scripture makes plain He is coming. Paul wrote, “For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). Furthermore, “He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him,” (Rev. 1:7). Contrary to new religious movements of the nineteenth century, it is Jesus, God the Son, who is returning to earth and that return will be sudden and bodily (Acts 1:11).

No other eschatological topic creates more dialog than the discussion about timing. The Thessalonian church was unnerved because some in their midst had died before Christ had returned and this appears to be a contradiction to what they understood Paul to teach. The abrupt transition frequently introduced by the phrase, “now concerning,” may indicate that the Thessalonians had communicated their confusion either directly to Paul or by some other means. Regardless, the Apostle stresses the point by expressing himself in the negative, “I don’t want you to be ignorant.” In like manner, the Apostle Peter sought to comfort believers who were suffering persecution by correcting their understanding about Christ’s return. In both cases, no attempt is made to identify a specific time, but to convince the hearers of God’s faithfulness. To the Thessalonians Paul begins, “don’t be ignorant,” and to the saints residing as aliens, Peter writes, “don’t let this one fact escape your notice.” Likewise, both conclusions are similar, “For the Lord, Himself will descend from heaven” (1 Thess. 4:16), and “But the day of the Lord will come . . .” (2 Pet. 3:10, emphasis added). Neither author is attempting to pinpoint the time of Christ’s return, but to encourage believers of the surety of that return and how they are, because it is Christ Himself who said, “Surely, I am coming soon” to conduct themselves until He does.

Though the NT omits describing the exact timing of the return, it does explain the believer’s posture in the intermission and enough detail about the event for them to validate the authenticity of His appearing. Christians are to be ready (Matt. 24:44), even eagerly waiting (Heb. 9:28), because His coming is likened unto a “thief” (2 Pet. 3:10), and the thief “is coming at an hour you do not expect” (Matt. 24:44). This waiting is an active waiting. Believers are to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world (Titus 2:12-13) and by doing so we may even participate in “hastening” His appearing (2 Pet. 3:12). The Christian’s posture is to live in a continual air of expectation, because it is Christ Himself who said, “Surely, I am coming soon.” Those who know Him should respond with the Apostle John, “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev. 22:20).

W. Buzwell McNutt (Ph.D.) is the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Knox Theological Seminary. Dr. McNutt has served at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary as Appointed Professor of Biblical Studies and Director of Extensions. He has served at Palm Beach Atlantic University as Associate Professor of Biblical Studies, and as the Executive Director and Associate Professor of Applied Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary Boca Raton.

notes

¹ It should be noted that the philosophical objections to this statement may be well-founded, however, not the focus of this article. Moreover, this statement is not meant to deny that the true north of the moral compass is God Himself (1 Pet. 1:16). It serves to highlight the biblical statements concerning judgment and rewards that are based on behavior, i.e. “You will know them by their fruit. . . (Matt. 7:16; cf. 7:21-23). See also, John Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: 1994), 89-118, to whom I have relied on for this argument.

 ²Frame, 95.
³Frame, 98.
⁴Frame, 100.

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 9 No. 2 – Essential Doctrines)