Francis Collins is a big name in genetics. He was the head of the Human Genome Project, which mapped the human genome. A couple of years ago he wrote The Language of God, in which he set forth evidence for the existence of God. But he didn’t start out a Christian theist. He was an atheist, but one day someone shook up his world. The following is part of the story in his own words. You can see the rest in his book.

Perhaps the books that have changed my life most profoundly are a couple of books written by the Oxford scholar, C.S. Lewis. Not about science, actually, about faith. When I was 27, I was a medical intern, I was a pretty obnoxious atheist at that point. I began to realize that while in other parts of my life I didn’t make decisions without accumulating data and then looking at it, I hadn’t really done that when it came to this very important decision about, “Do you believe in God, or not?”

Because I had no real grounding for that, I discovered in college that I couldn’t debate those who said, faith was just a superstitious carry-over from the past and we’ve gone beyond that. I assumed that must be right, and I promoted that same view. And at 27, particularly as a medical intern, watching so many tumultuous things happening around me — young people dying for terrible reasons that shouldn’t have come to pass — you can’t avoid noticing some pretty scary questions that don’t seem to have answers. So I decide I’d better resolve this.

Somebody pointed me towards C.S. Lewis’s little book called Mere Christianity, which took all of my arguments that I thought were so airtight about the fact that faith is just irrational, and proved them totally full of holes. And in fact, turned them around the other way, and convinced me that the choice to believe is actually the most rational conclusion when you look at the evidence around you. That was a shocking sort of revelation, and one that I fought bitterly for about a year and then finally decided to accept. And that’s a book I go back to regularly, to dig through there for the truths that you find there, which are not truths that Lewis would claim he discovered for the first time, but he certainly expresses them in a very powerful way to somebody who is not willing to accept faith on an emotional basis, and I wasn’t.

Yesterday I came across an intriguing chapter in a book by Paul Copan (When God Goes to Starbucks). The author starts by quoting from Bertrand Russell, the famous atheist, who said Jesus got things wrong about the second coming: “For one thing, he certainly thought his second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time.” He is referring to Matthew 10:23 (“you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes”), Matthew 16:28 (“There are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”), and Mark 14:62 (“you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven”). It seems obvious in these passages that the “coming” is expected within the near future of Jesus’ time.

The author, Paul Copan, presents a solution he calls a dual position — that Jesus “comes” up to God’s throne for vindication/judgment during “this generation” (in 70 A.D.) and that he will ultimately arrive (the “parousia”– his return to Earth) at an unknown time in the future. He says Jesus was speaking of two distinct events — answering two
questions — in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. Copan admits this approach may seem odd to today’s Christians, but he claims many biblical scholars hold to it.

Copan focuses on Matthew 24. Jesus tells his disciples that not one stone will be left upon another (verse 2), so his disciples want to know when these things will happen. But they go on to ask in verse 3 what will be the sign of his coming (parousia) and of the end of the age. Jesus knew the answer to the first question; he said the current generation would not pass away until all these things took place (verse 34). But he did not know the answer to the second question, instead saying no one but the Father would know (verse 36). Verses 4-35 discuss the events of the near future leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. while verses 36-51 speak of a more-distance future event – Jesus’ ultimate return.

A key verse is Matthew 24: 30. It says all will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. This may sound as if it’s talking about Jesus’ final return, but it is a reference to Daniel 7:13-14 where the Son of Man comes on the clouds to the Ancient of Days (a reference to God the Father) to receive authority from God as the confirmed king. So, this describes not a return to Earth but a coming to God. Several other places in the Bible refer to coming on clouds as a symbol of judgment (Psalm 18:12-14, Psalm 97: 2-3, Psalm 104:3, Isaiah 19:1, Nahum 1:3). Copan claims the majority of Bible interpreters see this verse referring to Jesus’ enthronement before God, not his parousia.

Many Christians interpret the list of events in Matthew 24 as signs occurring right before his return to Earth, but the author says they applied to events taking place before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem (70 A.D.). They include false prophets, wars and rumors of wars, famines and earthquakes, persecutions — all of which were mentioned by Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of that time period. In verses 16-21 Jesus indicates the troubles will be confined to the area of Judea, demonstrating that this is not a world-wide phenomenon. In verse 27 Jesus says this is not the period of the parousia, which will be obvious and visible to all.

So the preliminary signs of Matthew 24: 15-25 indicate that the fall of Jerusalem is near. These signs also reveal that the end of national Israel will quickly follow. So the reference to “all these things” in verse 33 (the destruction of Jerusalem) will take place within “this generation” (verse 34) – Jesus’ own day. When Jesus says his generation would not pass away until all these things would take place, he’s speaking of the temple’s destruction in 70 A.D.

There is a shift that takes place in Matthew 24: 36-51. Now Jesus is talking about his unexpected parousia. It starts with “But of that day and hour.” Mark 13:32 begins the same way, indicating a contrast to the events of 66-70 A.D. At this point Jesus indicates many people will be unaware and unprepared when he returns.

Paul Copan spends nearly 30 pages in his book developing and clarifying this idea, so my summary here is obviously incomplete. This interpretation really knocked me out because I had heard a lot of tortured explanations dealing with Jesus’ claims about his generation seeing him come again. By the way, Copan has several other books that are also excellent and thought-provoking. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about this.