Last week, Dr. Weaver made an important observation. He said that when we study prophecy, we often see ourselves in it. That is natural. But if we claim that the prophetic record represents us, then we must also allow others to see themselves in it as well.
That is a humbling thought.
It suggests that Revelation was not written only for one culture, one century, or one denomination. Across history, believers in very different settings have opened this book and recognized their own struggles in its pages. Christians under Rome heard it as a word of survival. Reformers heard it as a protest against corruption. Believers under oppressive regimes have heard it as courage in the face of coercion. Christians in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas have all, in different ways, found themselves in its story.
That tells us something about the nature of Revelation. It is not narrow. It is expansive. In different historical moments, Christians have said, “This speaks to us,” and in important ways, they were not wrong.
So instead of beginning with the question, “Are we the remnant?” I would like to ask a slightly different one: How have Christians across history understood themselves as the remnant? And how have they understood the Three Angels’ messages?
It is important to say carefully that what follows is a broad overview. These are patterns, not rigid categories. They often overlapped. They sometimes coexisted in the same period. They are not exhaustive, and they do not capture every nuance within each tradition. But they can help us see how interpretation has been shaped by historical pressures such as persecution, corruption, reform, revival, and expectation.
There is another part of Dr. Weaver’s comment that should guide us. He reminded us that the prophetic record ultimately points to Jesus and to what God does for us, not to what we accomplish for ourselves. Paul describes the remnant as restored by grace. If our understanding of the remnant begins to center on achievement, superiority, or performance, then we may have shifted the focus away from grace.
With that in mind, I began by looking at how various Christian traditions have interpreted Revelation 12 and 14, considering the challenges they faced. With the assistance of ChatGPT, I created a comparative table outlining major interpretive approaches across church history. The goal was not to catalogue every denomination exhaustively, but to identify broad hermeneutical tendencies.
For each approach, the table notes the historical period in which it became prominent, the kind of interpretive method it used, representative traditions commonly associated with it, and how it understood the remnant, Babylon, the beast, the mark, and the Three Angels. I then arranged these approaches chronologically, not to suggest that one replaces another, but to observe how interpretive emphases developed and intensified in response to particular historical conditions.
It is also worth noting that most of these formal interpretive “schools” developed within Western Christianity. At the same time, believers in non-Western contexts have often read Revelation through their own lived realities of oppression, economic exploitation, or state control. In that sense, Revelation continues to function globally, beyond the categories of formal theology.
Below is the table for reference. It is a broad comparative framework rather than a full academic treatment. It should be read as a starting point for discussion, not as a definitive map of all Christian thought.
| Interpretive Tradition | Historical Context and Traditions Commonly Associated | Remnant | Babylon | Beast | Mark | Three Angels (Rev 14) |
| Early Church (Patristic Contextual Reading) | 2nd – 4th centuries; early Catholic and Orthodox fathers under Roman persecution | Faithful Christians enduring imperial persecution | Rome | Roman imperial authority, often specific emperors | Participation in emperor worship | Call to exclusive loyalty to Christ; assurance of Rome’s eventual judgment |
| Preterist (Modern Critical) | 18th – 20th century historical-critical scholarship; common in mainline Protestant and Catholic academia | First-century believers in Asia Minor | Rome | Roman Empire, often Nero | Participation in imperial cult and economic structures | Prophetic declaration of Rome’s fall; warning against imperial idolatry |
| Idealist / Symbolic (Amillennial) | Augustine onward; common in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, many Lutheran and Reformed traditions | Faithful believers across the church age | Worldly power opposed to God | Recurring anti-God political and spiritual systems | Inner allegiance to false worship | Timeless gospel proclamation; contrast between true and false worship |
| Historicist (Reformation Era) | 16th century Reformers; early Lutheran, Reformed, and Anglican traditions | True believers preserved through church history | Papal Rome | Corrupt ecclesiastical authority | Submission to false doctrine and coercive church power | Proclamation of gospel protest; exposure of corrupt religious authority |
| Futurist (Evangelical / Dispensational) | 16th century roots; expanded in 19th century evangelicalism; common among Baptist, Pentecostal, non-denominational churches | End-time tribulation believers | Future global religious-political system | Future Antichrist figure or empire | Literal end-time allegiance to Antichrist | Final warning before global judgment; call to endure future crisis |
| Restorationist Historicism (Adventist Development) | Mid-19th century apocalyptic revival; Seventh-day Adventist Church and related Sabbatarian groups | Identifiable end-time movement characterized by commandment keeping and faith in Jesus | Apostate Christianity | Papal system or end-time false worship authority | Eschatological false worship system, often linked to enforced Sunday observance | Final global proclamation of the eternal gospel, judgment hour, fall of Babylon, and warning against false worship |
| Sectarian Apocalyptic Movements (e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses) | Late 19th century; Jehovah’s Witnesses and similar groups | Limited anointed remnant class, such as 144,000 | False religion collectively | World political systems under Satanic control | Loyalty to worldly governments or religious systems | Organizational proclamation of divine judgment; call to separate from false religion |
| This comparative table was generated with the assistance of OpenAI’s ChatGPT (GPT-5.2 model, 2026). The content represents a synthesized overview of major interpretive traditions in Christian theology and is intended for educational and discussion purposes. It is not a substitute for primary academic research or official denominational statements. | ||||||
When we look at the table carefully, what we see is not one uniform story, but several recurring patterns. For today’s class, I will describe four broad historical patterns that seem to emerge. Again, these are not solid boxes. They are tendencies that have become prominent in certain contexts.
Let us begin in the first century.
The Spiritual Allegiance Pattern
The earliest Christians who heard Revelation were, in many cases, trying to survive. They lived under the Roman Empire. The emperor was honored as lord. Participation in emperor worship could determine one’s social and economic standing. Refusal could mean exclusion, imprisonment, or death.
When they heard about a beast demanding worship, they did not need a complex system to interpret it. They recognized imperial pressure. When they heard about Babylon, they thought of Rome. When they heard about a mark connected to buying and selling, they understood it in terms of loyalty within an imperial system.
In that context, the remnant referred to those who remained loyal to Christ under coercion. Revelation 14 speaks of the endurance of the saints. Endurance, in that setting, meant fidelity in the face of threat.
The Three Angels’ messages would have sounded something like this:
- Fear God rather than Caesar.
- Worship the Creator rather than the empire.
- Do not give ultimate allegiance to a system that demands what belongs to God.
This pattern did not disappear with the fall of Rome. It continues wherever believers face coercion or state control.
The Institutional Critique Pattern
Many centuries later, particularly in the Reformation era, the crisis shifted. In broad terms, the concern was less about persecution from outside and more about corruption within the visible church.
Reformers believed that the gospel had been obscured by institutional control and doctrinal distortion. When they read Revelation, they still saw Babylon and the beast. But they interpreted them, in many cases, as symbols of corrupt ecclesiastical authority.
In that setting, the remnant referred to those who sought to preserve or restore the gospel. The Three Angels’ messages were heard as a call to return to the eternal gospel and to resist coercive religious authority.
This pattern emphasized the protection of conscience and the centrality of grace. Its strength was moral courage. Its risk, if not carefully guarded, was a permanent oppositional posture.
The Futurist Crisis Pattern
In later centuries, alternative readings developed that located much of Revelation’s fulfillment in a future global crisis. Rather than identifying Babylon or the beast primarily within present institutions, many interpreters began to expect a future world system and a future figure often identified as the Antichrist.
In this pattern, the remnant consists of those who endure a coming tribulation. The Three Angels are heard as a final warning before global judgment.
This approach takes the warning language of Revelation very seriously and preserves a strong sense of urgency. At the same time, if not balanced, it can move the focus almost entirely into the future and reduce the present spiritual dimension of allegiance and worship.
The Identity Defining Pattern
In the nineteenth century, particularly in the context of apocalyptic revival movements, some communities began to see themselves more directly in the prophetic record. The remnant was understood not only as a spiritual category but also as a visible, identifiable end-time community entrusted with a distinct message.
In this pattern, the Three Angels’ messages became a mission mandate. Babylon was defined more specifically as apostate Christianity. The mark was interpreted as an eschatological false worship system. The remnant was described as those who keep God’s commandments and hold the faith of Jesus.
This pattern brought clarity and purpose. It energized the mission. Yet it also carries a potential danger. If identity becomes central in a way that eclipses grace, the focus can subtly shift from what God has done to what we must prove.
Bringing the Four Patterns Together
When we step back, we notice that although the historical settings changed, certain themes remained constant.
- The remnant, in every pattern, involves endurance.
- The Three Angels, in every pattern, call for true worship.
- Babylon, in every pattern, represents distorted or rival authority.
- The mark, in every pattern, concerns allegiance.
The dividing line in Revelation is not primarily institutional. It is about worship under pressure.
Returning to Grace
Dr. Weaver reminded us that the prophetic record points to Jesus and to what God does for us. Revelation 14 begins with the eternal gospel. The warnings follow the gospel, not the other way around. The endurance of the saints flows from the Lamb who stands at the center of the vision.
In every historical pattern, there has been a temptation. Martyrdom can become merit. Reform can become superiority. Future endurance can become an achievement. Mission identity can become self-validation. If we are not careful, remnant language can shift from gratitude to proof.
So when we ask, “Who is the remnant?” perhaps the safest answer is this: the remnant is not first the group that proves itself correct. It is the community that clings to Christ in trust.
We may see ourselves in Revelation. That is natural. But if Revelation truly magnifies the Lamb, then wherever the Lamb is trusted, the remnant lives.
Discussion Question
If a believer in another country, facing very different pressures than ours, reads Revelation and sees themselves in its story, does that weaken our faith? Or does it confirm that Revelation is larger than any one of us?
Donald: I recommend a series of presentations PMC has been publishing overrun recent weeks. They are primarily in Daniel—Nebuchadnezzar, the image, the metals, the layers of material. When you come down to the toes, we see ourselves right there. There’s no question that by presenting it that way, we place ourselves at the center of the end-time sequence of events.
Last year, when we studied Daniel in my non-denominational class and reached that part, the interpretation was presented so prominently that they moved right through it without hesitation. We have certainly put that particular section under a microscope because it places us centrally in the conversation, as I think Don suggested—we tend to position ourselves in the middle of it and view everything through that lens.
It seems very West-centric—Europe and America are at the center of the conversation: Babylon, Rome, and so on. Where is China? Where are the other major civilizations? They seem absent from the framework. Perhaps they have now adopted the Adventist perspective, but they certainly didn’t originally see themselves as part of it. Or perhaps they might have, had it been presented differently.
If we follow the timeline approach—with dates, numbers, charts, and prophetic sequences—we know that we were founded on a mistake and had to readjust. I’m not suggesting there aren’t truths within the Adventist perspective, but if you listen to those sermons, they clearly say we have a warning to give our neighbors, that we have the truth, and that the truth is the Sabbath. It feels very inward—like this is us gathering on Sabbath morning. But there are many people who aren’t in church on Sabbath morning.
David: I think Kiran alluded to that when he talked about identity—that when people look at Revelation, they’re able to find and identify themselves within it. The Chinese, for example, might see themselves in it. That’s very interesting, given my ambivalent feelings about the book of Revelation, but I rather like the notion that it is all-inclusive, not exclusive to any one group.
We all identify in certain ways. I identify as a Christian, although I might not always appear to be one. But I do believe in Christ—certainly in his message and in the way he lived—and I think we should all follow that way. Yet perhaps, in some ways, identifying oneself as a Christian is almost irrelevant at this moment. If you’re Chinese and have never heard of Christ, you simply can’t identify as a Christian. But in a Revelation sense, perhaps you identify unknowingly simply by standing against evil and living as part of the remnant of good people who live as Jesus would want them to live, even without having heard of him.
I wonder if the Second Coming may be the moment when everyone—including the Chinese—focuses on Jesus and recognizes that there was one man in history who was God-like, who embodied what all peoples sense about good and evil and the right way to live.
Don: I suppose I’m guilty of holding two competing viewpoints at the same time. On the one hand, we can find ourselves in Revelation and even claim that we have a special mission because we see ourselves in the story. On the other hand, we don’t have to be exclusive about it. To me, that’s the genius of the genre of Revelation. As Kiran pointed out so eloquently, you can find yourself in the story regardless of culture or civilization, whether you are from modernity or antiquity.
But why does it matter whether you are the remnant or not? What difference does it make? What is the motive for claiming remnant status? Why should I care whether I’m the remnant if, by grace, I am saved through faith and not of myself? What difference does the label make?
In Revelation chapter seven, when the description is given of those in heaven, they come from every kindred, nation, tongue, and people. That suggests a meaning broader than anything I can conjure up for myself or my own religious community, in my opinion.
Carolyn: When did the word “remnant” become effective along this timeline? I like timelines. I’ve studied them, and I enjoy them. Starting with the Garden of Eden, then Noah—was the term “remnant” used before Jesus came the first time?
Kiran: Throughout both the Old and New Testaments, the concept of a remnant evolves. In the beginning—during the time of Noah, for example—the remnant meant those who survived a catastrophic event, those who lived through a great destruction.
When it comes to Israel, the meaning shifts. God chose a specific group of people, but as Israel became a nation, the idea of remnant referred to those who remained faithful when others did not. God’s judgment would fall on the majority, and the remnant would be the faithful few who remained.
Then Paul reframes the concept. He asks how Israel, God’s chosen people, could reject the Messiah. His answer is that even though many failed, God preserved a remnant by grace. Through that remnant, salvation extended to the Gentiles. So the theme moves from surviving catastrophe to being spiritually preserved by grace.
In Revelation, Adventists saw themselves as the remnant, especially after 1844. The Millerite movement believed Jesus would return based on prophetic interpretation—the sixth seal, the meteor shower, the darkened sun and red moon. Certain events seemed to align with those signs. For that period, it appeared the timeline was correct. When Jesus did not come, many left the movement, and those who remained saw themselves as the remnant described in Revelation 12 and 14.
At that moment, it became very real. You could see your story on that timeline. But if you look at the sixth plague or the signs described there—forest fires, earthquakes, meteor showers—we’ve had many such events in recent years. The timeline becomes messy. When events repeat, it becomes harder to anchor everything to a specific prophetic moment.
Reinhard: I’ve been thinking about this question of grace and knowledge, especially as Adventists. What is the strength of the Seventh-day Adventist message? We often refer to the Millerite movement and to Ellen White, who received visions and dreams. I believe she carried a message from God. With only a third-grade formal education and some informal Bible study as an adult, she produced an extraordinary body of writing—over 100,000 manuscript pages, around 40 books, plus articles and journals.
There is nothing wrong with knowing what God wants for His people. If her writings lead us closer to God, that strengthens us. Her emphasis on the fourth commandment—the Sabbath—was significant. If we believe that message came from God, then that is part of our identity as Seventh-day Adventists, and I am proud of that.
Other churches speak about grace, and I believe many people will be saved. But if we have conviction that this is the right vehicle to be part of, perhaps it gives us what I would call an “extra edge”—more knowledge. It’s like flying first class versus economy. Everyone may reach the same destination, but some may have additional insight along the way. That’s just an analogy.
Ellen White’s writings opened mysteries for many people, especially concerning the Second Coming. I grew up in another denomination that hardly touched Revelation. The Adventist Church emphasized it strongly, and eventually other churches began speaking about it as well.
When I look at the broader picture—Reformation, salvation by faith, the rise of new denominations—I see God progressively bringing more light. The remnant, to me, is the community that carries the torch of spiritual truth in its time. Israel carried that torch and often failed. Even in 2 Kings 21:14, God speaks of forsaking the remnant of His inheritance because of their disobedience. Being a remnant does not guarantee faithfulness.
In the New Testament, when Jesus commands His followers to teach and baptize, that becomes the mission. Paul speaks of being chosen. In our time, the remnant may simply be those who carry God’s message forward.
Other churches may also see themselves as remnant. I have no problem with that. But in my conviction, the Adventist message—especially in health, education, and Sabbath observance—gives clarity. If someone worships on Sunday with sincere conviction, I believe God will accept them through grace. But for me personally, following these teachings helps me feel closer to God.
I came from another Christian background. I was a heavy smoker in high school and could not quit, even when doctors warned me. After becoming Adventist, the teaching of the church helped me change. I believe the Holy Spirit works through these teachings.
People come to church for many reasons, often through personal conviction. Ultimately, God is the judge. We do what we believe is right, according to our understanding, and trust in His grace.
Kiran: Ellen White was indeed a prolific writer. Certainly, one could argue she could not have done that without God’s help. But we could apply similar reasoning elsewhere. The Roman Catholic Church is the oldest and one of the largest churches in the world. It survived the tremendous upheaval of the Reformation and still exists. Would that alone prove it is the true church?
The Adventist Church, after more than 250 years, has around 20 million members worldwide. It is one of the larger global denominations. Does size prove legitimacy? Ellen White may be one of the most translated women writers, but that may also reflect the global organizational structure behind Adventism, which translates and distributes her works. Other writers without such organizational backing are translated because people simply love their writings.
We can make many logical arguments either way. But the central question we’re discussing is this: The Adventist Church says Jesus is coming—be ready. We are the remnant church—be ready. Everyone agrees Jesus is coming. The question is, how do you prepare to be ready?
The Adventist answer is to keep the Ten Commandments and keep the faith of Jesus. But no one perfectly keeps the Ten Commandments. And what does it mean to keep the faith of Jesus? At its core, it means believing in the finished work of Jesus Christ—that He has already done everything necessary to save us. If you believe in that finished work, you are saved. That is the central message of the gospel.
It is often difficult to hear that message clearly in Adventist churches. In many non-Adventist churches, including Catholic churches, it is much easier to hear that emphasis. The Adventist message stresses readiness, but sometimes it does not clearly explain how to be ready.
Whether Adventists call themselves the remnant does not concern me so much as when people are moved away from Christ and toward focusing on themselves and their works. That is contrary to the gospel. Ellen White herself spoke clearly about grace, yet her emphasis on grace is sometimes overshadowed.
A church with Jesus and His grace truly at the center of everything it does would be a wonderful church. But members of many churches live under legalism. They know the standard, and they know they cannot meet it. That creates misery—the very misery Jesus came to remove. Why return to that?
The Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and some others also have strong lifestyle standards. They abstain from alcohol and certain behaviors. That does not automatically validate a church. What validates the church is recognizing that we are sinners, recognizing Jesus as Savior, and trusting in His finished work. Any church that shifts attention away from that central message is failing.
Donald: That raises two thoughts. First, what is the value of organization? David said he identifies as a Christian, but not necessarily as a Seventh-day Adventist. Why did we feel the need to define ourselves as something distinct, to form a structure and go out with a message under an organized banner? Why isn’t being simply Christian enough?
Is it human nature to create structure and identity—to say, “Here is our doctrine, our framework, our system”? Does it help us feel centered? Is that necessary for faith?
Second, we probably need to step back and talk about the role of a prophet—specifically Ellen White. Even living in a strong Adventist community, many neighbors would not recognize her name. She means a great deal within Adventism, but outside of it, she is largely unknown.
When we were raised, the church, Ellen White, her visions, the 2300-day prophecy—it all came as a package. We accepted it comfortably without much examination. We were taught the greater light and the lesser light from childhood. But why is there such reluctance to lessen the prominence of Ellen White if the church claims the Bible is the greater light? If the Bible can stand on its own, why the hesitation?
Reinhard: I believe every Christian denomination that relies on Jesus and believes in grace is accepted by God. If we have an extra edge in knowledge—understanding more about what God wants from us in areas like health or education—then perhaps that is a gift. Ellen White may have received that knowledge through her relationship with God.
But even her writings have faced opposition. There have been offshoot movements within Adventism. More recently, some have questioned her teachings—for example, whether the Sabbath is the sign, or whether the Holy Spirit is the sign. I think both could be meaningful. There have also been accusations of plagiarism. But writing that many pages makes it understandable that similarities would appear. That does not automatically discredit her.
During her time, certain interpretations—such as identifying the papacy with 666—were controversial. That understandably created tension with Catholics. Over time, even the Catholic Church has reevaluated aspects of its teaching. The current pope has publicly stated that Mary is not a co-redeemer. So churches evolve.
Again, grace applies to every believer who sincerely trusts in Jesus. For us, perhaps we have an additional understanding of what God desires. Sabbath observance is one example. Even AI today will tell you the biblical Sabbath is the seventh day. Some worship on Sunday out of conviction, and I believe God honors sincere conviction. Ultimately, God is the judge.
We simply do what we believe is right according to our understanding. If Ellen White’s writings help us grow closer to God, that is a strength. If they lead us away from the Bible, then that would be a problem. For me, they point back to Scripture.
David: I suspect that if Ellen White could return today, she would fit right in with our little group. Based on what little I have read of her, I think she would appreciate open discussion. I’m not an Adventist. Yet I’m very happy in this group of mainly Adventists.
If I attended an Adventist church regularly—or a Catholic church, or any other church—people might question my beliefs, but the questions might feel leading, designed to guide me toward their doctrinal conclusions. Here, when you ask me questions, it’s because you’re genuinely curious. That makes all the difference to me.
I feel a sense of belonging in this class. I think we all do. That’s why we keep coming back.
If there were ever to be a defense of Seventh-day Adventism, I don’t think it could be expressed better than Reinhard just did. It was beautifully said. I wouldn’t take issue with it. On that basis, I could be an Adventist. In a way, Reinhard represents what Adventism could be—holding firmly to core teachings while seeing the bigger picture. I think that’s admirable.
Donald: I was raised in a thriving Seventh-day Adventist church in Rochester, and developed a close friendship with another member of it. At the time, it had perhaps 350 to 400 members. They kept building larger facilities because it appeared to be growing. That church was part of my life and identity. I wouldn’t know this friend if we hadn’t grown up in that church family. Yet he hasn’t stepped inside that church for fifty years. He was asked not to return. I’m not saying it was entirely his fault or entirely theirs. But something deteriorated. He has struggled ever since, and the injury he experienced there has made it difficult for him to sustain a Christian journey.
I feel very blessed to be part of this community. Even if we occasionally feel that a sermon is lacking or a Sabbath morning experience is imperfect, we still have something meaningful here. The church in Rochester now has perhaps thirty-five people attending in the same building. They describe themselves as peculiar and seem to embrace that label. It’s hard to imagine someone walking in there and feeling that this is a place to nurture faith.
In other contexts—Randy Roberts’ church, 3ABN, PMC, and other centers of Adventism—there is energy and vitality. Education continues. In some places, the church thrives. But once you move into smaller or more rural areas, attendance drops significantly. In North America, many churches have fewer than fifty members on Sabbath, and they are aging congregations.
The doctrine has not fundamentally changed. So what is happening? Is it leadership? Organization? Communication? I don’t know. But many churches are struggling. They are sincere, God-fearing Christians. I don’t question that. Yet something has not been compelling or attractive enough to sustain growth.
Kiran: Oakwood now has many older adults and fewer young people. College-age members often leave and don’t return. Detroit and Michigan have experienced slow or negative population growth in recent years, and that trend is reflected in the church.
Churches all across North America, including Adventist churches, are losing members. In many non-Adventist churches, people leave because the church feels irrelevant. It’s not necessarily doctrinal disagreement; it simply doesn’t connect to their lives.
In Adventist churches, people often leave not because they disagree with doctrine. They may agree with the teachings. But they lack relational connection. The church teaches doctrine—charts, timelines, prophetic sequences—but does not always teach how to cultivate relationship: with God and with one another. Pastoral visits decline. When someone is sick, fewer people show up. The relational dimension weakens.
Research within Adventism indicates that this trend has been occurring since around 1965. Covid accelerated it, but the pattern was already there.
Donald: Having worked for years in university retention, I can say that the number one reason students leave a university is not academic failure. It’s lack of belonging. If they don’t feel connected, they drift away. They don’t make a conscious decision to leave; they simply stop returning. I think that applies here as well. A sense of belonging is essential. Students needed to understand why they were at that university and what made it unique. If they felt connected, they stayed.
Carolyn: I think judgmentalism plays a big role in whether people feel connected. When I speak with my children, grandchildren, and their friends, the word “judgmental” often comes up. I think it overshadows love.
C-J: I don’t have enough knowledge to form a strong opinion, but it seems to me that most churches have lost membership since the early 1990s. There are financial pressures. People have to work more. There is disconnection. It can feel expensive—emotionally and practically—to belong to a church.
And yes, churches can be judgmental. The younger generation seems very interested in grace—especially in non-traditional churches. They focus on reaching the disenfranchised, the poor, people of color. They run food pantries and after-hours programs. It’s less about religion itself and more about embodying grace and love. It’s a different narrative, but it’s rooted in what Christ wanted the church to be. You didn’t have to be Jewish, but you did need grace, kindness, community, and generosity.
Don: That’s a good note to end on. Thank you, Kiran, for this provocative series of essays. I’ll add one thought. We tend to place the signs of the Second Coming on a timeline. When we see an earthquake, we want to say it means Jesus is coming tomorrow. But I see those signs as ongoing reminders that the promise is true—that He will return. The physical world is unstable. That reminds us of the need for renewal. But we are not meant to construct a precise timeline predicting when it will occur.
C-J: Yet Jesus did speak of signs and wonders. He told us to pay attention. But no one knows the hour. Live your life as though it could be your last day. Be generous with your time.
Don: Yes, very well said. The signs are evidence that it will happen, but not in a way that allows us to predict the timing. I think we’ll end on that note.
* * *
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.