Did He or Didnt He? by Scott Klaft

Did He or Didn’t He?

''The False Dichotomy of Literal vs. Spiritual ....... ''By Scott Klaft

Early in our being introduced to Christianity, we learn there is a great deal of information we have to handle honestly if we are going to learn God’s divine will for us. Things we thought we once knew would have to be scrutinized; and, whatever does not fit God’s word would have to be dismissed. We do not have the luxury of assuming what we presently believe must be right and therefore anything to the contrary ''must be wrong.'' The honest student of the Bible will always be checking, testing, and reexamining the things he believes, regardless how obvious the subject matter may seem.

It would be difficult to find a single page in the New Testament that did not address, in some form or fashion, the idea that Jesus, since His resurrection and ascension into Heaven, is said to come again to accomplish a number of purposes. What those purposes are – and when they are to be accomplished – are matters of deep study in the scripture which must be examined from the perspective of that first generation of Christians to whom the inspired record was first given.

Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Jesus made a promise to His disciples and others that “the Son of man” would, indeed, “come” (e.g. Matthew 10:23; 16:27, 28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39; 26:64; et. al.). It is the studied opinions of each of the authors of this publication that the scriptures teach Jesus’ “coming” (as spoken of in the above cited passages) took place in the A.D. 70 destruction of the Jewish economy.

In desiring to make that case to friends, but before ever having the chance to do so, it is too often dismissed with a sneer and this objection: “That was not the literal coming of Christ; that was a ‘spiritual’ coming in judgment by the Roman armies” – or some variation of that objection. This may be a sincerely offered sentiment, but it is a severe error in terminology that has the objector contradicting Jesus’ own words.

It is not the intent of this article to make the case regarding the timing of Jesus’ coming again. Rather, I want to plead with the reader to think a bit more about the meaning of words and make the necessary corrections of thought that will lead to a correction of use. It is not denied that Jesus’ coming in judgment against the Jews in A.D. 70 is a “spiritual” coming of Christ. What is denied is that the conception of His coming in a spiritual manner is somehow opposite to His “literal” coming.

Think about what Paul meant when he wrote, “...the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal” (2nd Corinthians 4:18). Then, he continues on with that contrast by comparing the “earthly tabernacle” of the physical body with that which is “eternal in the heavens” (5:1). It is the contrast of the ''physical with the spiritual''. He said the physical, material things of this world are temporal (Greek: proskaira – enduring only for a little while). But of that which is spiritual, the unseen things, he said they are eternal.

There is no leap in logic, therefore, to say that which is eternal has more presence in reality than the things of a physical, material nature. Something that is spiritual, such as Jesus’ coming again, is not only a real event but also an actual, literal “coming”. That is what Jesus called it.

“For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Matthew 24:27)

Why would we contradict Him and say His coming in the judgment of the Jews in A.D. 70 was not literal – as though the spiritual nature of it somehow made it less real? If anything, it made it more real.

"The use of figurative language to 

                       describe an event does not mean the 

'''                   event being described did not take place."'''

Admittedly, people often mean “figurative” rather than “spiritual.” But, even were we to grant that as what they mean, it does not change what Jesus said. If, by saying it was “figurative,” it is meant that Jesus did not actually come in judgment of the Jews, then all of the biblical record as well as secular history stands opposed to such a statement. In fact, most people who will engage in the discussion with this objection (at least those who are members of a church of Christ, as well as many who are not), already admit that everything said in Matthew 24:4 – 34 pertains to Jesus’ judgment coming upon the Jews in A.D. 70. To say that Jesus did not actually “come” because it was a “figurative coming” is to contradict both Jesus and one’s self.

Moreover, when saying His coming was somehow “figurative,” no explanation is given for what it is supposed to be a “figure” of. Figurative language borrows from things that are commonly known in order to comparatively describe some other thing.

There is an opportunity here – if the objectors will use it – to assert their belief that the figure is symbolic of Jesus’ future coming to judge the world, destroy the material universe, and resurrect the dead. If this is what is believed, it is a worthy subject for conversation and sincere study – to find whether that is what the Bible teaches or not, honestly putting it to the test of scripture.

But, it must be said: If for the sake of discussion it might be granted that the destruction of Jerusalem and the ending of the Jewish nation were figures of some future coming of the Lord, does that somehow mean Jesus did not, in fact, in reality, literally, spiritually come in A.D. 70? Seriously, friend – did He say He was coming at that time for that purpose, or didn’t He?

The use of figurative language to describe an event does not mean the event being described did not take place. The truth of the matter is: Jesus came just as He promised He would in A.D. 70. Now it is up to the student of scripture to determine whether or not those other elements attached to the idea of His coming occurred at the same time. No hedging about the spiritual nature or what it might figuratively symbolize can prevent the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise.

Admitting the reality of Jesus’ coming in judgment, we must move forward and pose other questions. What evidence is there that Jesus promised multiple comings after His resurrection and ascension? How many comings in His Kingdom did the Lord say there would be? How long would His reign in His kingdom last? Is there any indication that nearly 2000 years (and counting) would separate the promises of His coming again as they were given to the first generation of Christians?

All of those things we thought “everyone knows” need to be put to the test. No – similar terminology does not always demand identical meanings, but similar terminology in the ''same context and subject matter'' does call for an examination of that possibility. And please remember the meanings of those terms “physical” and “spiritual” are not synonyms, or even parallel, to the terms “literal” and “figurative.”

It’s especially important when Jesus promised to do something that we come up with the right answer to the question, “''Did He, or Didn’t He?''”