A Critique of the Three Comings of Christ
By Eli Kittim
Mainstream Christianity holds to the three comings of Christ. This modern eschatological position is so bizarre that it has actually devised not one, not two, but three comings of Christ. Some offshoots of this doctrine have additional comings. Hereās a brief summary of this view:
1. First Coming = Christās Incarnation, believed to have been witnessed in the first century c.e. (cf. Lk 2.11).
2. Second Coming = Christ will *invisibly* return for the rapture of the faithful (cf. 1 Thess. 4.16-17).
3. Third Coming = Christ will return once again and will be followed by a great multitude of saints (cf. 1 Thess. 3.13).
By contrast, I propose that thereās only *one* coming mentioned in the New Testament (NT), which complements the *one* coming mentioned in the Old Testament (OT).
The Gospel Genre
This is the starting point of all the hermeneutical confusion, which sets the tone for the rest of the Christian Canon. The gospels are not biographies or historiographical accounts. As most Bible scholars acknowledge, they are largely embellished theological or apocalyptic documents that show a heavy literary dependence on the OT. So, the assumption that the gospels are furnishing us with biographical information seems to be a misreading of the genre, which appears to be theological in nature. In comparison with the expository writing of the NT epistolary literature, which is explicit and didactic, the literary style of the canonical gospels can only be described as a theological genre of historical fiction!
The epistles apparently contradict the gospels regarding the timeline of Christās birth, death, and resurrection by placing it in eschatological categories. The epistolary authors deviate from the gospel writers in their understanding of the overall importance of eschatology in the chronology of Jesus. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and āprophetic writingsā (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die āonce for allā (Gk. į¼ Ļαξ hapax) āat the end of the ageā (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. į¼Ļį½¶ ĻĻ Ī½Ļελείᾳ Ļῶν αἰĻνĻν in Dan. 12.4 LXX; Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the ālast days,ā 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christās *initial* appearance with unsurpassed lucidity:
āHe was marked out before the world was
made, and was revealed at the final point of
time.ā
The 70-Weeks Prophecy of Daniel
Danielās seventy weeksā prophecy refers exclusively to the end-time and has nothing to do with the time of Antiquity. It specifically alludes to the reestablishment of the State of Israel, a prophecy that was fulfilled in 1948 (cf. Ezek. 38.8)! A common misconception is to assume that the starting point of this prophecy began after the Hebrews returned from the Babylonian exile during the 500s b.c.e. However, this prophecy refers to the end of all visions and revelations, an end-time period that will in effect āseal both vision and prophetā (Dan. 9.24). John MacArthur, in describing Dan.9.24, was once quoted as saying: āItās got to be a final thing cause everything is a final⦠. Boy, thatās final stuff, isnāt it? The end, the finish, the seal, seal it up, close it up, thatās the way it is!ā If it is āfinal stuff,ā then the prophecy cannot possibly be referring to the time of Antiquity but rather to the time of the end! This prophecy also refers to ātimes of distressā (Dan. 9.25 NASB), a phrase which is used elsewhere in the Book of Daniel to refer to the time of the end (see Dan. 12.1). Note also that Daniel outlines the timeline of the Messiahās *death* as occurring *AFTER* the prophesied rebirth of Israel (9.25-26) at the end of days!
The traditional Christian interpretation is further compounded by breaking up the prophecy into two parts: one part fulfilled during the time of Antiquity, the other referring to the last week of the great tribulation (GT). In other words, exegetes assume that there is a two thousand-year gap between the so-called āsixty nineā weeks and the seventieth week. However, there is no Biblical evidence of a long time-gap between these weeks, but rather a successive sequence of events that combines both *princes* within the same context of the eschatological timetable (cf. Dan. 9.24-27), thus rendering the expositorsā imposition on the text unwarranted. Thatās why Isa. 2.19 puts the resurrection of Christ in the last days. He says that people will hide in the caves of rocks when āthe Lord ⦠arises to terrify the earthā (cf. Rev. 6.15-17). First Cor. 15.22-24 tells us explicitly that Christ will be resurrected in the end-times (an idea also entertained by British New Testament scholar James Dunn).
2 Thessalonians Chapter 2
The author of 2 Thess. 2 warns against deception by stating unequivocally that the coming of Christ for the rapture cannot occur āunless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealedā (2.1-3). Thereās a further condition that has to be met before the rapture can take place, and before the ālawless oneā (i.e. the Antichrist) can be revealed, namely, someone needs to be removed from the earth. A common misinterpretation is that this must either be a reference to the *Holy Spirit* or to the *church*, which will be taken out of the way before the Antichrist can be revealed. But if it is the Holy Spirit or the church it would directly contradict the Book of Revelation (7.13-14), which foresees a great spiritual revival during the time of the GT. For instance, John the Revelator sees āa great multitude thatā came āout of the great ordeal [GT]ā (Rev. 7.9, 14). This multitude represents the āchurchā of Christ, which is obviously present, not absent, during the GT. And without the Holy Spirit no one can be saved (Rom. 8.9b). Therefore, the so-called ārestrainerā of 2 Thess. 2.6-7 can neither be the Holy Spirit nor the church. This mysterious figure can only be explained by my unique eschatological view. Since I hold that the first horseman of the Apocalypse is Christ (the white horseman), it is he and he alone who is the restrainer, and after he is *slain* the Antichrist will be revealed.
Millennialism
Christian eschatology holds that the so-called āsecond comingā of Jesus will transpire either before the Millennium (i.e. premillennialism) or after the Millennium (i.e postmillennialism). First, a literal millennial kingdom would contradict the Bible because it would imply more than 2 comings of Christ, 2 apocalypses, 2 Great Wars, 2 resurrections, 2 Great Endings, and so on, as opposed to one of each, which is what the Bible teaches. Second, the endtime war that Satan is said to unleash at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20.8) is the exact same war mentioned in Ezekiel 38: Gog & Magog. Third, 1 Thess. 4.17 says that after the rapture āwe will be with the Lord forever,ā not just for 1,000 years. Fourth, the Book of Daniel is clear that both the Good and the Damned will be resurrected simultaneously, not successively (12.2). By contrast, the second death in Revelation 20.14 is incorporeal, NOT physical. Itās the lake of fire; a spiritual death. Itās a category, not an event. So, only 1 physical resurrection is indicated in the Bible; not 2! Fifth, the only physical resurrection mentioned in the Bible is the one that is called the 1st resurrection, presumably because it comes prior to the above-mentioned spiritual one. And this resurrection is said to occur when the thousand years are finished (Rev. 20.5). And if itās explicitly mentioned as the first resurrection, then it means that there couldnāt have been an earlier one. So then, how could the same people who would not be resurrected āuntil the thousand years were completedā (Rev. 20.5) simultaneously live and reign with Christ for a millennium? (Rev. 20.4). They cannot be both dead and alive at the same time! Therefore, Amillennialism (i.e. the view that there will be no literal millennial reign of the righteous on earth) is not obliged to subscribe to the *three-comings-of-Christ* model!
Does Christ Return Multiple Times?
The belief in the *three comings* of Christ equally contradicts a number of NT passages (e.g. 1 Cor. 15.22ā26, 54ā55; 2 Tim. 2.16ā18; Rev. 19.10; 22.7, 10, 18ā19), not to mention those of the OT that do not separate the Messiahās initial coming from his reign (e.g. Isa. 9.6ā7; 61.1ā2). Rather than viewing them as three separate and distinguishable historical events, Scripture sets forth a single coming and does not make that distinction (see Lk. 1.31ā33). Indeed, each time the āredeeming workā of Messiah is mentioned, it is almost invariably followed or preceded by some kind of reference to judgment (e.g. āday of vengeanceā), which signifies the commencement of his reign on earth (see Isa. 63.4).
Conclusion
Most people expect Christ to come from the sky. The truth is, he will come from the earth (cf. Acts 1.11). The sequence of eschatological events is as follows: Christ will appear āat the final point of timeā (1 Pet. 1.20 NJB; Rev. 6.2). He will die āonce in the end of the worldā (Heb. 9.26b KJV; Zeph. 1.7-8, 14-18) and resurrect (1 Cor. 15.22-24; Heb. 9.27-28) to rapture the faithful (1 Cor. 15.51-52; 1 Thess. 4.15-17; 2 Thess. 2.1-3) and fight the nations (Isa. 31.5; 63.3; Zech. 14.3; Rev. 19.15)!
The difference between my view and the classical Christian perspective is that Iām convinced that there are not multiple comings and multiple returns of Christ, but *only one* decisive coming at the end of the world, which includes the resurrection, the rapture, and his appearance in the sky!












