Whats your point?
That The coming of Jesus Christ as a Thief was a
conditional first-century event based on the decisions of men???
That The coming of Jesus Christ as a Thief was delayed 2000+ years because some first-century men did or did not not repent when Jesus attempted to come back for them?
Not hardly.
St. John did not say Christ's coming to them was conditional. RATHER, what was conditional was whether or not Jesus was going to reward them or punish them at his coming to them. That Jesus was returning to those seven, first century churches of Asia Minor is not in question, if we are to trust the words of St. John and Jesus Christ.
The only conditional part to Rev 2-3 is whether each Church would be punished or rewarded (according to their works, of course). If they were obedient, they were rewarded. If disobedient, punished. The idea that Christ was making his thief's coming to them conditional is nowhere in the text.
--COMPARE THIS--
Matt 24:42-44
be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming...if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you think not
--TO THIS--
Revelation 3:1-3
"To the angel of the [first-century] church of Sardis write:...remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you.
The giving of either a punishment or a reward was all that was conditional, and the condition was placed upon "their works" (Matt 16:27; Rev 20:13; Rom 2:6), which Jesus was then judging in Rev 2-3 (Rev 2:2, 2:9, 2:13, 2:19, Rev 3:2, 3:8, 3:15 ). The judging of their works took place in
Revelation 2-3, back in the first century, and St. John documents it for us to read about.
The thief's coming itself was not conditional, and it was fulfilled exactly when Jesus and the apostles believed it would be--in their generation.
The coming of Jesus Christ as a Thief is
NOT A CONDITIONAL EVENT. According to scripture, the coming of Jesus Christ as a Thief was to take place irrespective of whether some repented and others did not -- in fact,
scripture fully and uniformly teaches that some would be faithful and others unfaithful (
Romans 2:5-9; Mt 25:1-13; Lk 13:24-30; 1 Cor 3:12-15). As the angel also plainly states:
Revelation 22:10-11
And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy."
Did you catch that? Man's repentance or lack thereof has nothing to do with the timing of the coming of Christ as a Thief. Nothing whatsoever. Note also that Jesus explicitly says that the Thyatria Prophetess movement chose not to repent, and that He was coming and would kill her and her "children."
But to the rest at Thyatria (the faithful), they were to hold fast and had no additional burden placed upon them, for Jesus had rewards to give them as stated in Rev 2:26-28. We know that Christ came to them, for he came and killed the Prophetess and rewarded the faithful as he said. This is all first-century stuff here. No "Church Age," no "1948," no "21st century computer chips" -- the glorified Jesus knew of none of those modern speculative doctrines, and that makes them impossible doctrines, ones not found anywhere in scripture. Had any of those things been biblical doctrines, then Jesus would not be speaking to first-century churches about His coming TO THEM as we see him doing in
Revelation 2-3,
where He plainly applies the doctrine to first-century people.
