The Problem You Can’t Avoid in Bible Prophecy

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and studying about Christian eschatology—the part of the Bible that deals with the “end times” and what God has promised about the future. 

I’ve come to realize something important: How a person understands the “end times” is often shaped by deeper assumptions—things that implicitly guide how they read the text.

At the center of it all are two key elements:

the time-limiting statements and the events of the Second Coming

The Time-Limiting Statements

The New Testament describes the coming of the Son of Man, the gathering of the elect, and related end-time events in terms that seem to place them within the lifetime of Jesus’ audience.

Statements like:

• “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place”

• “Some standing here will not taste death…”

• “The time is near”

• “The end of all things is at hand”

Taken at face value, these point to something expected soon—in their own time, not thousands of years later.

The Events of the Second Coming

At the same time, the New Testament describes Jesus’ “coming” in dramatic terms:

• The Son of Man coming

• The gathering of the elect

• Judgment

• Resurrection

• The establishment of God’s kingdom

Many have understood these as global, visible events that unfold within our physical world—bringing about a real, literal kingdom of God on the earth.

The Tension

Here’s the issue: if the time statements are taken at face value, then these events would have taken place in the first century. But if those events are understood as literal, world-ending realities, then they clearly did not. So something has to be reinterpreted.

Two Ways of Resolving It

Both sets of passages are Scripture. Both require interpretation. The question is: which one gets adjusted? Many begin with a fixed picture of what the second coming must look like. Since that hasn’t happened, the time statements are reworked:

• “This generation” becomes a type of people.

• “Near” becomes relative.

• “Soon” becomes flexible.

But there’s another approach:

Take the time statements at face value—and let them reshape how we understand the events. That doesn’t mean nothing happened. It means we may need to rethink what those events were—and how the original audience would have understood them.

What’s Really Driving It

This isn’t about bad motives. It’s about starting points. Do we begin with a fixed definition of the second coming—and adjust the timing? Or begin with the timing—and reconsider the nature of the events? 

In the end, your view of the second coming shapes how you read the time statements—and your commitment to the time statements shapes how you understand the second coming.