How soon is “soon”?

By Roger W. Coon
A few months ago I attended the funeral of an 89-year-old member of our
little church in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia. In his homily the pastor
assured the mourners that they would soon be reunited with the loved one
from whom they were now parted. Why? Because Jesus was coming back to
earth “soon,“ to put an end to sin, misery, unhappiness, sickness, and death.
Seventh-day Adventists have been preaching the imminence of the Second
Coming for 156 years. But how near is “near“? How soon is “soon“? One
hundred fifty-six years is a long time to wait!
This month (October 2000) marks an important anniversary for Seventh-day
Adventists. It holds the 156th anniversary of both the Day of Great
Expectation“October 22, 1844“and the Day of Great Disappointment“October
23, 1844. It may likely be an anniversary that will bring with it a degree of
embarrassment for some within our ranks whom, I suspect, would just as
soon forget anything and everything connected with 1844.
On October 23, 1844“the day after Jesus did not return as foretold by William
Miller and his followers“the Millerite movement (estimated at between 50,000
to 250,000 strong by various historians) disintegrated for two cogent and very
compelling reasons: They no longer had a message, and they no longer had
an audience willing to listen to them. The movement broke up into four
splinter groups.
The largest group abandoned religion of any kind. They had been greatly
embarrassed, even mortified, when the predicted return of Jesus did not occur
as they had believed it would. They were angry with God and, truth to tell, not
a little with themselves. They saw themselves as having been duped into
joining a movement that was alternately reviled and derided by most
segments of the populace. In frustration and weariness they gave up all
religion altogether.
The second group went off into various forms of fanaticism, many successively
setting new dates for the Lord“s return in the process. But they continued to
cry “Wolf, wolf“ just one time too many. Soon no one listened to them
anymore. Within a half dozen years they disappeared from the scene.
The third group continued to look for the Advent“near, but without setting any
dates. And they continued, like the vast majority of the Millerites before them,
to worship God on Sunday, the first day of the week. In 1860 they formed
themselves into a denomination known as the Advent Christian Church.
They“re still around, though their numbers continue to decline year by year.
In recent years the Advent Christian membership in North America has slipped
from something more than 31,000 members to something less than 19,000
members“a drop of more than one third.

The fourth and smallest group to emerge from Millerism was a body of
perhaps half a hundred, scattered throughout New York and New England,
who coalesced around the leadership of James and Ellen White and retired sea
captain Joseph Bates. In 1860 they too organized and took to themselves the
name Seventh-day Adventist. They accepted the seventh-day Sabbath; they
believed that God had bestowed upon Ellen White the spiritual gift of prophetic
utterance; and they believed that Christ had entered a new phase of His
heavenly high priesthood on October 22, 1844.
Like their Advent Christian friends, these Saturday-keeping Adventists
continued to believe the return of Jesus was near, and they too refused to set
any dates. In 1863 their half dozen state conferences organized a General
Conference, and they were off and running. Today they number some 11
million around the globe.
But 156 years is a long time to wait. How soon is “soon“? How near is
“near“?

The Seventh-day Adventists“

“Twin“ Sister“the Advent Christian Church
Ellen White“s parents, Robert and Eunice Harmon, believed that Ellen had a
special gift from God. They finally“hesitantly, perhaps even
reluctantly“accepted the Sabbath in 1850 or 1851. Of Ellen“s seven brothers
and sisters, only two, Robert, Jr., and Sarah Harmon, became
Sabbathkeepers.
Her twin sister, Elizabeth, or “Lizzie,“ as Ellen fondly called her, probably the
only other sibling still remaining at home with Ellen as 1844 ended, never
accepted the Sabbath.
Just so, the Seventh-day Adventist Church also has a “twin sister““the
Advent Christian Church. They share our common roots within the Miller-ite
movement and are quite friendly with Adventists. But they never accepted the
Sabbath, the prophetic gift, or the doctrine of the heavenly sanctuary. Their
ardor for the doctrine of the Second Coming has substantially waned,
however, as their numbers have dwindled.
At a 1961 Advent Christian Church state conference, the delegates passed a
resolution, without a single dissenting vote, that was subsequently published
in their Present Truth Messenger of September 7 and 21 (vol. 64, No. 13). It
declared, in part:
“For some years many of our people have been suggesting various answers to
the anxious question, “What is wrong with us?“ Others have impatiently come
up with the criticism that the form of the question is wrong. We ought to ask,
“What is right with us?“ . . .
“A little thought should make it very evident to any of us that we can never
again preach the kingdom message as our fathers preached it and make any
impact upon the church or the world. We don“t understand the time periods.
We still believe we were basically right about the symbols of Daniel and
Revelation, and yet the whole subject of predictive prophecy is so involved
that it is utterly impossible for any Adventist preacher to go to the people with
the deep conviction and sense of certainty that our fathers did.
“And because we can“t and don“t it seems to the church that we have lost
our message and our reason for being. You cannot rejuvenate the Advent
Christian people unless and until a sense of certainty and urgency gives wings
to our words and we can speak with confidence and certainty. People often
ask, Why don“t we have any great prophetic preaching any more?
“The simple fact is that such preaching is today utterly impossible. For
“prophetic“ preaching [of the Historicist School] to carry any weight with
intelligent audiences in our day we shall have to know a lot of things that we
don“t know. And can“t know. . . .
“But to keep our self-respect and win the respect of the people we must
refrain from pretending to know what we do not know. To keep on saying that
He“s coming “soon“ will impress no one, least of all the kind of audience that
we have great need of reaching.“1
If the truth be known, some of our own Seventh-day Adventist members and
even a few of our ministers share kindred feelings with these sincere, but oh,
so disappointed people.
One Sabbath afternoon nearly seven years ago one member attending a
public question-and-answer forum I was conducting handed in a written
question: “Why did the New Testament writers say He was coming “soon“?
How can 2,000 years be “soon“? Was the Lord deceiving us for 2,000 years,
so we would live in readiness?“
Good question!
Here“s how I responded: “Because Jesus Himself said so“four times, for
instance, in the very last book of the New Testament“and three times alone in
its very last chapter!“
“Behold, I come quickly“ (Rev. 3:11). “Behold, I come quickly“ (Rev. 22:7).
“Behold, I come quickly“ (verse 12). “Surely I come quickly“ (verse 20).
In terms of relative time relationships, God“s people in the Old Testament had
to wait 4,000 years for His first coming, while we“ve had to wait only half that
long“nearly 2,000 years, so far“for the Second Coming. And remember that
Peter said that a day with the Lord was as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day (2 Peter 3:8).
But it remains a legitimate question, and it still deserves a good answer. How
near is “near“? How soon is “soon“?
Can Adventists still preach the imminence“the nearness“of the second coming
of Christ more than 150 years after He “failed“ to appear, as expected and
preached by our Millerite forefathers in 1844?
Ellen White“s Problem
Ellen White faced the same perplexity in her day. In 1851 she had declared in
one of her earliest writings: “I saw that the time for Jesus to be in the most
holy place was nearly finished and that time can last but a very little longer.“2
Thirty-two years later, in 1883, critics resurrected this potentially damaging
and embarrassing statement and threw it in her face, declaring it proof that
she was a false prophet.
Note her stirring, ringing defense, found today in Selected Messages, book 1:
“As the subject was presented before me, the period of Christ“s ministration
seemed almost accomplished. Am I accused of falsehood because time has
continued longer than my testimony seemed to indicate? How is it with the
testimonies of Christ and His disciples? Were they deceived?
“Paul writes to the Corinthians: “But this I say, brethren, the time is short. . .
.“ (1 Cor. 7:29, 30). Again, in his epistle to the Romans, he says: “The night
is far spent, the day is at hand. . . .“ (Rom. 13:12). And from Patmos, Christ
speaks to us by the beloved John: “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that
hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written
therein: for the time is at hand“ (Rev. 1:3). “The Lord God of the holy
prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must
shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly; blessed is he that keepeth the
sayings of the prophecy of this book“ (Rev. 22:6, 7).
“The angels of God in their messages to men represent time as very short.
Thus it has always been presented to me. It is true that time has continued
longer than we expected in the early days of this message. Our Saviour did
not appear as soon as we hoped. But has the word of the Lord failed? Never!
It should be remembered that the promises and threatenings of God are alike
conditional.“3
Two points, first of all, are worth noting:
1. Ellen White always went straight to the Bible to find her best and most
effective answers.
2. The presence of a conditional element, in some prophetic writings, was her
theological explanation for resolving this particular problem.
The Conditional Element
There is an often-overlooked element, present in some (but not all) heaven-
inspired prophecies, which theologians refer to by the category of
“conditionality.“ Some prophecies by genuine, Spirit-led prophets are
essentially and inherently conditional. If hearers respond in a particularly
stated way, then what is predicted“good or bad“will surely come to pass.
But if they should change their mind, their attitude, their response, the
predicted threatening or warning“yes, sometimes even God“s promises“will
not come to pass.
Fulfillment of prediction is generally recognized as one of at least four biblical
tests that every true prophet must pass in order to be accepted by God“s
people. This test applies to Ellen White, in her day and ours.
Jeremiah identifies the test positively: “When the word of the prophet shall
come to pass, then shall [it] . . . be known that the Lord hath truly sent him“
(Jer. 28:9).
Moses, on the other hand, shows the negative side: “If the thing follow not,
nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the
prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him“
(Deut. 18:22).
Both prophets go to extended lengths to introduce the conditional element in
some prophecy. Jeremiah gives the test in chapter 28, verse 9. In addition to
that oft-quoted line, Jeremiah introduces the conditional element 10 chapters
earlier, in 18:6-10, and again in 26:2-6.
Moses also discusses the conditional element in some prophecy in three other
locations in Deuteronomy (4:29; 8:19; 28:1-15).
A number of other biblical writers, in historical and prophetic passages, also
discuss this conditional element of prophecy.4
Failure to take into account this important biblical principle can lead into
dangerous paths. The most well-known case in Scripture is that of Jonah,
God“s reluctant prophet to Nineveh, who complained bitterly to God when the
Ninevites profoundly repented and thus (for some decades) were spared
destruction. Jonah“s story illustrates the perils of pervasive
“unconditionality,“ for it forgets the moral purpose of prophecy, through
which God intends to correct, reshape, or renew His people.
Applied to the biblical doctrine of the Second Coming, this understanding of
conditionality leads to two major points:
1. The fact of the Second Coming is not conditional and is not up for grabs.
Nahum movingly asks: “What do ye imagine against the Lord? he will make
an utter end: affliction shall not rise up the second time“ (Nahum 1:9).
2. The time of the Second Coming, however, is conditional“which helps to
explain a seeming contradiction between the words of Peter and the words of
Paul in the New Testament.
Apparent “Contradiction“
Between Peter and Paul
Peter wrote to the Christians of his day, telling them not only to earnestly
“look“ for Christ“s second coming but also to attempt to “hasten“ it along,
by quickly finishing the work Christ had given them to do in spreading the
gospel to everyone (2 Peter 3:12).
Eighteen hundred years later Ellen White underscored the same idea. Less
than two years before her death in 1915 she wrote: “By giving the gospel to
the world, it is in our power to hasten the coming of the day of God.“5
But hear Paul, preaching in Athens, as he tells the Greek philosophers of that
city, “[God] hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in
righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained“ (Acts 17:31).
Little wonder, then, that some Christians are puzzled“and that some skeptics
have scoffed“at this apparently opposed set of assertions in the Bible. But the
critics fail to recognize two facts: (1) These two statements form a paradox,
not a discrepancy (two contradictory statements that are mutually exclusive);
and (2) both statements are true“when correctly understood in their total
context.
In her introduction to The Great Controversy Ellen White wrote: “As several
writers [in the Bible] present a subject under various aspects and relations,
there may appear, to the superficial, careless, or prejudiced reader, to be
discrepancy or contradiction, where the thoughtful, reverent student, with
clearer insight, discerns the underlying harmony.“6
God has “appointed a day““a backstop date“beyond which sin and sinners
will no longer be allowed to continue to operate in opposing God and His work,
as He now permits.
But He has also given it into the hands of His followers“and even earnestly
invited us“to “hasten“ that day by bringing it to pass even earlier than His
final backstop date. It“s certainly true that it is in our power to “hasten“ His
return. But, on the other hand, it“s not true that we can hinder it indefinitely
from coming to pass.
The Two Motifs
I“m fascinated to discover both motifs in the writings of Ellen White.
LeRoy Edwin Froom, in his monumental work, Movement of Destiny, helpfully
points out that Ellen White echoes Peter a total of 45 times in the 61 years
between 1850 and 1911. Each time she says essentially the same thing: If we
Adventists had properly done our job, the Lord would have come before now.7
But Dr. Froom then goes on to cite another 13 statements, made between
1863 and 1915“a parallel period of 52 years“in which Ellen White echoes
Paul, indicating that there is a final “backstop“ date, a “predetermined
boundary line irrevocably “fixed,““ beyond which God will not indefinitely
wait.8
Many of these latter statements are couched in a metaphor of the “cup of
iniquity,“ which, when full, will instantly trigger the Second Coming and
God“s judgments against the wicked. So while the fact of the Second Coming
is not up for grabs, not subject to conditionality, the time of the Second
Coming is conditional.
Why would God passionately wish for Christ to return earlier than the final
“backstop“ date He has already determined?
In a famous saying, Jesus declared that not one sparrow falls dead to the
earth without the Father“s notice (Matt. 10:29). Then, in the very next
breath, Jesus declared that one human being is worth more to God than many
sparrows (verse 31). If God notices and is pained by the death of just one
insignificant sparrow, how much more is He pained by the deaths of millions
of unsaved persons who pass into eternity each day!
God passionately seeks to terminate the reign of sin and death as early as
possible. No wonder the “whole creation groaneth“ with each passing day
(Rom. 8:22).
Hints About the Future
Ellen White, albeit reluctantly, seems to hint in at least three places that, in all
likelihood, we believers probably won“t do our work thoroughly enough to
enable Christ to come in advance of His predetermined “backstop“ date.
She made two statements in 1885 that seem to indicate that she believed we
will run out the string of time to the final irrevocable date set for Christ“s
return:
“When divine power is combined with human effort, the work will spread like
fire in the stubble. God will employ agencies whose origin man will be unable
to discern; angels will do a work which men might have had the blessing of
accomplishing, had they not neglected to answer the claims of God.“9
In a letter written from Europe to a conference president in North America
eight weeks earlier, she had penned: “The loud cry of the third angel shall be
heard. . . . Light goes forth to lighten the earth. . . . Let me tell you that the
Lord will work in this last work in a manner very much out of the common
order of things, and in a way that will be contrary to human planning. . . . God
will use ways and means by which it will be seen that He is taking the reins in
His own hands. The workers will be surprised by the simple means that He will
use to bring about and perfect His work of righteousness.“10
She uses a remarkable phrase: “It will be seen that He is taking the reins in
His own hands.“
Her metaphor was doubtless more familiar to her contemporaries than to us
today. We“re more accustomed to travel in automobiles with steering wheels
rather than in horse-drawn conveyances for which the driver holds the reins in
his hands. But for the carriage driver of the late nineteenth century, taking
the reins in one“s hands portrayed an assumption of control and authority
over a situation.
Paul may have been indirectly hinting at the same thing when he told the
Christians of his day: “For he will finish the work, and [He will] cut it short in
righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth“
(Rom. 9:28).
Perhaps guided by the sad thought that human beings might never really
finish the work of God on earth earlier than the final “backstop“ date, Ellen
White wrote concerning the first coming of Christ: “Like the stars in the vast
circuit of their appointed path, God“s purposes know no haste and no delay. .
. . So in heaven“s council the hour for the [first] coming of Christ had been
determined. When the great clock of time pointed to that hour, Jesus was
born in Bethlehem.“11
Likewise, for Christ“s second coming, God also has appointed a day.
The Ultimate Urgency of the Second Coming
In the end, the real, ultimate urgency of the Second Coming has nothing to do
with the signs that Jesus foretold would precede it, important as they are for
us to understand.
It has nothing to do with the charts so meticulously made in an attempt to log
those signs in a linear manner, as helpful as those charts may well be. The
urgency of the Second Coming has nothing to do with the haste“ or the lack
of haste“with which we Christians may pursue our work of warning the world
of its imminence.
The message of the Second Coming is an urgent truth because none of us
knows for sure how many breaths we will be allowed to take before we close
our eyes in the dreamless slumber of death.
This is doubtless why Ellen White wrote in 1882: “We are today to watch that
we offend not in word or deed.
. . . We must today seek God and be determined that we will not rest satisfied
without His presence. We should watch and work and pray as though this
were the last day that would be granted us. How intensely earnest, then,
would be our life. How closely would we follow Jesus in all our words and
deeds.“12
How soon is “soon“? How near is “near“?
“Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter“ (Eccl. 12:13).
Bible truths spoken by Habakkuk, Jesus, Paul, and John highlight the central
point. Five hundred years before Christ, Habbakuk wrote: “The vision is yet
for an appointed time: but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it
tarry, wait for it; because [in the end] it will surely come, it will not tarry“
(Hab. 2:3). God is here telling us that that which may seem to us to be a
delay in the fulfillment of His promises is not necessarily viewed as such in His
eyes. He urges great patience while we endure what seems to be an
unendurably long waiting period.
This promise helped the disconsolate Millerites through their extended
disappointment in the aftermath of October 22, 1844.13 It will also be of great
consolation to believers today who wait for “His appearing.“
Jesus Himself warns us against saying, “My Lord delayeth His coming.“ He
characterizes such a one as an “evil servant,“ undeserving of the Master“s
great gifts (Matt. 24:48; cf. Luke 12:45).
Paul also picks up on Habakkuk“s theme, urging those living in the end-time:
“Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of
reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God,
ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will
come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw
back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him“ (Heb. 10:35-38).
“As the Holy Ghost saith, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your
hearts, as in the provocation“ (Heb. 3:8; see also Heb. 3:15; 4:7).
John adds the important ethical point: “And all who have this hope in him
[Christ] purify themselves, just as he is pure“ (1 John 3:3, NRSV).
Just as children sometimes prattle while playing hide-and-seek, so the Lord
also solemnly calls out to us from the heavenly courts “Here I come, ready or
not!“
May we respond today as John responded, breathing out his love for his
Master: “Even so, come, Lord Jesus“ (Rev. 22:2)“and come quickly!
_________________________ 
 1 Cited in Robert W. Olson“s 10-page monograph,
“Pluralism“How Much?“ June 1, 1986, pp. 1, 2. 
 2 Ellen G. White, Early Writings, p. 58. 
 3 Ellen G.
White Manuscript 4, 1883; cited in Selected Messages, book 1, p. 67. (Italics hers.) 
 4 2 Chron.
15:2; Zech. 6:15; Ex. 19:5, 6; and 1 Kings 9:4-7, to mention only a few. 
 5 E. G. White, in Review
and Herald, Nov. 13, 1913; cited in God“s Amazing Grace, p. 353. 
 6 “““, The Great Controversy,
p. vi. 
 7 LeRoy E. Froom, Movement of Destiny (1971), pp. 571-588. 
 8 Ibid., pp. 597-600. 
 9
White, in Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1885, cited in Selected Messages, book 1, p. 118. (Italics
supplied.) 
 10“““, Testimonies to Ministers, p. 300. (Italics supplied.) 
 11“““, The Desire of Ages, p.
32. 
 12 “““, Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 200. (Italics supplied.) 
 13 Ibid., vol. 1, p. 52.
_________________________
Roger W. Coon, Ph.D., is a retired associate director of the Ellen G. White
Estate. He continues to serve as adjunct professor of prophetic guidance at
the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University,
Berrien Springs, Michigan.