Christians inherently owe the world an apology. Christ’s apostles taught us as much (e.g. 1 Peter 3:15). Our debt is not an expression of “regret, remorse, or sorrow for having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another.” We owe an “apology” in the secondary sense of the word: “a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine.” The quality of our apology depends in large measure on our ability to clearly and honestly interpret biblical prophecy.
A powerful illustration of our need to defend the Christian faith with clear prophetic interpretation comes from the pen of the famous atheist Bertrand Russell. In his work Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects, Russell listed defects in Christ’s teaching. All of them involve Russell’s assessment of Christ’s prophecies. Russell writes:
For one thing, he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.” Then he says, “There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom”; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, “Take no thought for the morrow,” and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise.
In this selection, Russell refers, sequentially, to the following passages: Matthew 10:23; 16:28; 6:25.
We must admit the accuracy of Russell’s observations in at least one area. What we believe about prophecy does impact how we live. Our view of God’s kingdom reduces (and should eliminate) our worry about the future. Seeking “first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” leads us to take “no thought for the morrow” (Matthew 6:33–34). We readily agree with Russell here.
Given that admission, how should we respond to Russell’s critique of Jesus’ prophecies of his second coming? R. C. Sproul has some concerns about our collective reaction to this point:
It is my fear that evangelicals today tend to underplay the significance of the problems inherent in Russell’s assumptions. Too often we take a facile approach to the problem that reveals our failure to feel the weight of such objections. This becomes particularly acute when we realize the extent to which these problems have contributed to the entire modern controversy over the inspiration of Scripture and the person and work of Christ.1
Sproul believes our failure to defend the faith against attacks based on erroneous prophetic interpretations carries significant consequences. These affect our faith communities and their witness to the world.
What is your reaction to Russell’s observations? If you are unsure how you would “apologize” (i.e., defend the faith) against his criticisms, we invite you to subscribe to this blog and join us as we attempt to improve our ability to interpret prophecy. Our effort will require many posts, but our progress will, with God’s blessings, be steady and rewarding. Eventually, we hope to provide a convincing answer to Russell’s inaccurate interpretations of prophecy.
2 comments
There is much about the contemporary church’s handing of prophecy that needs an “apology.” In addition to Russell’s objections, surely skeptics or even open-minded unbelievers find much in eschatology that is confusing or down-right offensive – proclamations about the exact date of Christ’s return, etc. I’m thankful to see a blog that treats these issues with optimism and consistency.
Thanks for the encouragement!