Can we Stop Jesus from Coming?

A strain of Adventist thought has grown up within the church, teaching something called Last Generation Theology. The supporters of this strain – including several well-known leaders – believe that their recently articulated 14 points are a reflection of traditional Adventism rather than “new light.” One of the 14 points which is quite intriguing is the concept that humans can speed/delay the Second Coming of Christ.

LGT draws from 2 Peter 3:12 (NKJV), which encourages us to “look for and hasten the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat.”

Presumably, then, we can make Jesus come sooner by being ready to meet Him. This seems to go along with the Great Commission, further reinforcing our need to “finish the work.”

But this brings up several questions:

• First, if it is possible to hasten the coming of Jesus, it is possible to delay His coming indefinitely. If we could delay His coming, then He is not sovereign over us because we have power over Him.
• Second, at what point are we “ready” since we know that the entire world will not be saved? We would struggle to convert the whole world, but would have no idea if we’re any closer.
• Third, how do we know if we have delayed the coming of Jesus? If you don’t know, you can’t motivate people by proclaiming that unless we ready the world, Jesus will have to wait to come. How do you know Jesus didn’t intend to come 100 years from now anyway?
• Fourth, to suggest that Jesus is waiting upon us to get our lives in order places the burden of saving souls upon us, and not God. We have a responsibility to invite people to Jesus, but He is in charge of saving souls. Therefore, how many come is a matter between them and Him.

These are just a few concerns. The theology is certainly appealing, given that it places the burden of Jesus’ coming firmly in our hands. Not only is the whole theology based on one verse, but it’s based only on a possible translation. The NIV renders the word we translate “hastening” as “wait eagerly” in the margin. Both translations of speudontaV are possible. In the context of the Bible, “to wait eagerly” for the coming of Jesus is a much better translation.

We can’t control the timing of Jesus’ coming, but we can make sure that as many people are ready as possible when he comes. And that’s powerful theology.

And to the Republic for which it stands…

“With unrivaled eloquence, [Plato] sawed off the branch upon which he sat.”

These are the words of Will Durant in describing Plato’s quest for utopia, as outlined in his Republic. The word utopia, first coined by Sir Thomas More in a book by the same title, actually comes from a play on two Greek words: eutopos (‘good place’) and outopos (‘no place’). In other words, a utopia is a good place that doesn’t exist. It carries within it the hope of glory and the seeds of skepticism and, being thus self-contradicted, means nothing.

But Plato was an innovator. For even God did not outline all the specifics of how heaven was to be run, except to say that mankind would no longer lust for discord. Plato, taking natural discord for granted, sought to rearrange humanity into harmony.

Plato said that men naturally have one of three dominant natures: desire, emotion, and knowledge. Desire (impulse, instinct, etc.) has its seat in the loins, emotion (spirit, feelings) has its seat in the heart, and knowledge (reason, wisdom) has its seat in the mind. And all men are dominated by one of these and thus fell into one of three categories of service to the state based on which quality they exhibited.

In building this utopia, Plato put education at the forefront, dividing it up by major tests at the end of each period:

Ages 10-20 (physical education tempered by musical training) – if you fail the test at 20 you are to be the farmers, blacksmiths, clerks, etc. of the nation. Typically assumed to be the “Desires.”

Ages 21-30 (various character development and training) – if you fail at 30, you become military and security officers. All the “Emotions” would get this far.

Ages 31-50 (training in philosophy) – if you pass at this point, you are qualified to rule the nation. The “Wise” would go all the way through.

Only the smart, brave, and noble were permitted to have children. There were to be no marriages – and thus no jealousy or family allegiances. The rulers were to eat with the farmers. Everyone had everything in common and no one was permitted to own 4x more goods than anyone else. Seeing the incompetence of many a leader elected by a democracy, Plato ensured that his “philosopher-kings” would have to spend some time with the other branches of society to gain experience.

Everything sounds so…anticipated. Why then do you think Durant claimed that Plato was sawing off the branch upon which he sat?