What reconciliation do those who hold to the Doctrine of Imminence offer regarding Peter’s foretold death?

Question

Within the pre-tribulational view of the rapture, the doctrine of imminence suggests that Christ’s return (specifically the rapture portion of His return) could occur at any moment, meaning that nothing else must take place, prophetically speaking, prior to the rapture. This doctrine is often supported by passages throughout the New Testament, where the apostles exhort the early church to live with the expectation that they are on the cusp of Christ’s return.

Many modern proponents hold to this view, and one that is often pointed to is John MacArthur. MacArthur explicitly argues for imminence in his article “Is Christ’s Return Imminent?”, citing passages that he believes demonstrate the early church lived with this belief of an imminent return. He begins by quoting James 5:7-9, as evidence of such a notion:

“Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receives the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.”

Given the likely early date of James’ epistle, MacArthur argues that imminence was a belief from the earliest years after Christ’s ascension. He then quotes 1 Peter 4:7, suggesting that Peter likewise shared this belief:

“But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.”

This poses a problem, however, whether the Doctrine of Imminence, as MacArthur suggests, was true during Peter's own lifetime.

The Foretelling of Peter’s Death

In John 21:18-19, we find a prophecy from Jesus regarding Peter’s death:

“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.”

Here, Jesus foretells that Peter would grow old and ultimately die a martyr’s death. As verse 19 explicitly states, this prophecy was a declaration of Peter’s future manner of death, which church tradition later identified as crucifixion.

Question Regarding the Doctrine of Imminence

With all of this being said, could the traditional Doctrine of Imminence—suggesting that Christ’s return has been possible at any moment since His ascension— have been true during the early portions of church history, especially during Peter's lifetime?

This view, as held by John MacArthur and others, seems difficult to reconcile with the clear indication in the Gospel of John that Jesus prophesied Peter would grow old and die as a martyr. If Christ had returned during Peter’s lifetime before his death, it would have rendered Jesus’ prophecy false. I suspect that some variants of the doctrine suggest it began at the completion of the book of Revelation, but from my understanding, the more traditional view holds that Christ’s return could occur at any moment since His ascension, which is where this post is focused.

I anticipate responses that might suggest that perhaps Peter (or others) did not fully grasp or remember this prophecy. It could also be argued that John, writing his Gospel much later in life and likely after Peter’s martyrdom, was the only one who knew and, consequently, recorded this detail. However, even if this were the case, it would only mean the early church thought Christ’s return was imminent—it would not make imminence a factual reality for the early church as many suggest.

Scripture quotes are KJV, thank you in advance for any input. God bless.

Answer 1

Regarding the views of the apostles after Jesus' resurrection:

They would remember that at that final supper with him, he told them to keep doing that eating of bread and drinking of wine in remembrance of him, until he came again. They were to keep doing it as a proclamation, showing faith that he would return. Once he returned, that commemoration would cease. Luke 22:18-19

They would know that when they asked Jesus about the sign of his coming, he spoke of wars and rumours of wars, "but the end is not yet". Jerusalem would have to be destroyed, and that they were to flee prior to that. Jesus said that false Christs and false prophets would arise, to mislead many. Others would claim to be the Christ and gather followers around themselves. They knew they were to preach the gospel "for a witness "unto all nations; and then shall the end come". Mark 13:22 Matthew 24:3-14

All of that would take time, especially preaching the gospel to all nations! So, for Jesus to foretell Peter's later incapacity and death, would fit into that time-scale perfectly well. After all, Peter was a mature adult when Jesus gave that prediction, but we all know that infirmity can strike suddenly. Besides, this other translation gives a clearer translation, I would suggest:

"Verily, verily, I say to thee, When thou wast younger, thou wast girding thyself and was walking whither thou didst will, but when thou mayest be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another will gird thee, and shall carry [thee] whither thou dost not will." John 21:18-19 Young's Literal Translation

A person only had to attain the age of 60 plus to be considered 'old', in those days.

Regarding the doctrine of imminence:

This has got nothing to do with any pre-tribulation beliefs about a "rapture". Christians the world over know that Christ has not yet spectacularly returned, with hosts of angels, in great glory, to usher in the day of Resurrection and Judgment.

Every generation of faithful Christians since the Apostles' day kept looking for Christ to come again, and likewise in this generation. The expectation has always been that it could turn out to be imminent, within not only their lifetime, but perhaps within the year! As Jesus warned that it would be unexpected, even Christians could be caught napping, as some of his parables said. How many Christians today would be alert to Jesus' possible return on, say, Christmas Day?

The point about 'imminent' is that it is an unknown quantity as far as time is concerned. "Any time now" is the sense. The wording of imminence is designed to keep people alert; not sleeping on their watch.

The book of Revelation is a master-class in that. It has served every generation of Christians to keep alert, for at an hour they do not expect, their Lord might suddenly arrive. So, don't rule out this imminent Christmas day, or next year's. It's not a matter of reconciling ideas. It is about doing every day what Jesus commanded us to do: "Watch, and pray" - Matthew 26:41 & 24:42.

Answer 2

1 Peter 4:7 can certainly be used to prove immanence, but not the immanence of Christ's return for His Bride or the final judgement.

“But the end (τελος (telos)) of all things is at hand (εγγυς (eggus)): be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” - 1 Peter 4:7

1 Peter was likely written between 61 and 64 A.D. (Apologies. I don't prefer C.E.) so this places the writing prior to the 70 A.D. destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem.

The word εγγυς (eggus) does, indeed, mean immanent or 'at hand'. What needs clarification is whether 'the end of all things' refers to the second coming of Christ in judgement or a rapture of the Church or something else. What exactly is being called immanent?

The word τελος (telos):

The noun τελος (telos) describes the completion of a cycle or procedure that exists within a larger operation. It does not denote the ending or coming to a halt of a procedure, but rather a transcendence of a cyclic procedure, which in turn allows a complete review of, control over and utilization of the whole cyclic procedure, while this procedure itself still continues beneath. Our word subsequently also describes the harvest or rather the monetary yield or revenue extracted from any cyclic process. The ancients realized that proceeds don't merely relate to the value of the product but rather to the value of the whole cycle of production, as well as the investment of that yield into a subsequent process...The bottom line is that our word τελος (telos) does not emphasize the sudden termination of a process, but rather the yield of the process, and not merely the static existence of this yield but rather as the first step of a whole new cyclic process. Our word means "end" as much as "beginning" and represents a threshold of transition between two progressive realms. - Abarim Publications

From the Day of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was sent to indwell believers (those temples made without hands), until the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem, and the hard stop of the entire levitical and sacrificial system that this event constituted, was a period of transition.

The new had come and the old was decaying and ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13). That vanishing away of the old is in view in 1 Peter 4; that is what was being spoken of as immanent: The old was yielding the new.

Within the totality of the scope of God's plan for the redemption of man, the Law and the Temple and Priesthood (which was after the pattern of heavenly things) had fulfilled it's purpose: It had prophesied, pictured, and held as a schoolmaster unto Christ.

The 'cycle' (telos) of the Old Covenant, within the larger salvation 'cycle' (telos), was coming to completion because the 'cycle' (telos) of the New Covenant had commenced. This very thing, the utter destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (and by implication, all that it represented) was clearly prophesied by the Lord Jesus Himself:

And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. - Matthew 24:1-2

This is very likely what 1 Peter 4:7 has in view as immanent rather than a second coming or a secret rapture.

---

If Peter had believed that Jesus' second coming could possibly occur prior to his own death he would have had to either misremember or forget altogether Jesus' prediction of it in John 21. Both of these are possible however, in either of these cases, if Peter believed in an "immanent return" he would have believed so in error because Jesus clearly said Peter would die first.