The proclivity among Christians to think of, if not compute, the end of time(s) is rooted in a misconception of what scripture is all about. More specifically, the misunderstanding is linked to our assumption that, since an event takes place in time, we should be able to approach it chronologically, that is to say, assume that it has a yesterday, a today, and a tomorrow. We are so stuck in this mentality that we unwittingly use this terminology even when dealing with what we call eternity: we refer to it as being "before" creation and "after" the end of time. We do not seem to realize that according to the Bible time was created (Gen 1:3-5) and, consequently, we may only use the concept of "before" or "after" within the reality of time.

There is no need here to enter into the reasons behind our enslavement to a particular concept of time. Enslavement, nonetheless, it is. Indeed, we relate many of our daily experiences to a completely different kind of concept of time, and as my reader will momentarily realize, it is this way of dealing with time that rules our life more than the one I spoke of earlier. Take, for instance, a baseball game or a tennis match. Each happens within time, yet it is not bound by it. Time does not function as the decisive factor in the reality of these events, although they are indeed events within time. Recall the saying about a baseball game, that, "It ain’t over ‘til it’s over": a game or a match is defined by its content, not its duration.

The same applies to an event so central in and to American life: the court case or law suit. No one, I am sure, is going to deny its reality, and yet time in the court is eminently irrelevant, immaterial. Whether one is dealing with the individual session or the entire case, the case is determined by the content of the proceedings, not by when they take place or how long they last. An individual session starts when the judge enters and declares that it is open or resumed, and the same session is adjourned when the judge says so. The time elapsed between sessions can be a couple of hours, days, or even weeks or months. A given court case can go on for years, and yet it does not mean that the discussion lasted years; in fact, the actual time spent in court may amount to a limited number of hours. What this means is that time is not a factor in the definition of a court case. Even more: it is the case itself that becomes a factor in understanding the length or shortness of the "elapsed" time. It is the difficulty of the case that sometimes makes it require more "elapsed" time, i.e., time outside the sessions. A more complex case can take a much longer "elapsed" time than an easier one, but not necessarily more time in court sessions. And, ultimately, "down the road" of history, it is the content itself of the case sessions that gives value to the time linked with them.

Holidays can serve as examples of the same principle. The Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia and adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776, and today we celebrate every July 4 as "Independence Day." But the text of the Declaration was not written in one day. And the 13 colonies were hardly "independent" the moment Congress adopted it. The whole matter -- including the date itself -- would have been forgotten had the war been lost or if the Constitution had not finally been adopted finalizing the creation of a new nation eleven years later. Consequently, it is only by removing time as a decisive factor in understanding these events that we can say that the "event" of the American Revolution truly "took place" in Philadelphia’s "Independence Hall." It is what happened there, twice, that gave meaning to what happened out on the streets. Thus, not only was the "elapsed" time not at all a factor -- the sessions could have lasted more or less -- but it actually is the event that gave a new meaning to time by making out of an otherwise ordinary calendar day (July 4th) or year (1776) a reality in and of itself. When these two numbers reach an American ear, they have a meaning that has nothing to do with numbers or dates or time.

All this shows that what we perceive as reality is determined as much by the way we perceive it as by the reality itself. Put otherwise, what happens "out there in the open" is not reality for us until and unless it is relayed to us in words, and those words create the framework in which we perceive the event. Without that framework any given event would effectively cease to exist; it would be as if the event had never happened, since without the words that relay it to us the knowledge or memory of it would die. In other words, the effective survival, and thus the reality, of an event lies in its being relayed through the word. Contrary to the popular assumption, then, it is the word that is the foundation of the event so far as our knowledge of the event is concerned, and not vice-versa. If things do not seem so, it is because we have, of late, grown accustomed to being "privy" to events through the media of the photograph or videotape. However, this is a wrong impression, since photographs and videotape are virtually always accompanied with a commenting word to avoid any misinterpretation of the event.

But, even in this "video" world of ours, the "court" reality I referred to at the beginning remains on the level of the word. In a court, it is the verdict, and nothing else, that counts in determining the outcome, and thus the meaning, of what happened. And the verdict is oral and/or written, i.e., a "word." The importance of this example lies in the fact that in "biblical times" all recorded expressions took place in a court setting. I said "recorded" expressions to underscore the fact that these are the only ones that reached us and thus we are aware of, i.e., the only ones we can actually speak of. Any other expressions are simply a figment of our mind, imaginary, unreal. But how is it that all such expressions, and thus, realities, are "court" realities?

In the Ancient Near East the king was the sole authority in his city, reflecting the authority of the deity whom he represented. The earlier cities did not have streets; at the entrance there was an open area, the forum, the market place where citizens and visitors gathered to take care of their daily business, mainly bartering. The forum lay in front of the two main buildings of the city, the temple and the palace, the first being the deity’s house, the second the king’s. Actually these two buildings functioned as a complex since the temple was the king’s shrine. Thus, everything in the city took place "before the eyes" of the king who was thus "all-seeing." Put otherwise, in those times matters did not need be "brought to the fore" (English "fore" comes from forum); they always were "in the fore." Thus, the king functioned as the judge; so did the deity. Their throne was first and foremost a "throne of justice and righteousness."

On the other hand, the king and his palace as the sole authority issued the only valid version of what happened even in a battle far away, just as today the official version of the U.S. government is given by the official spokesman of the White House. Today, one might say, one can always get other versions from newspapers, radio, university professors, even individuals using the internet. However, in those times, writing was such a complex endeavor that it was undertaken only by the palace scribes. In other words, the only recorded statements expressed the official (royal) viewpoint.

When one combines these two features, then one understands how any reality was a court reality: it was either a lawsuit or a verdict. This is precisely how one finds the prophetic literature cast, with few exceptions. Indeed, the divine words reflect the court background: God is either the judge or the prosecutor or the plaintiff. The rest of the Bible was woven on the basis of and around the prophetic teachings. The Pentateuch is cast as the story of God first judging Pharaoh and delivering his people; then bringing this same people before his mountain throne where he proclaims his law by which he will judge them during their sojourn around his cities of Jerusalem or Samaria. In their turn, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are replete with passages where the people or the kings fall under God’s judgment and verdict. Thus, in the Bible whenever God is the subject of the story -- and he always is -- then he is the judge. By the same token, all the biblical events actually take place in his forum, "before his eyes," and not "out there," as we have grown accustomed to think.

The corollary of the preceding is that whenever the Bible speaks of God’s coming, it is referring to his coming to sit on his throne of justice. To understand the matter, one is to compare it with the coming of the judge in a court of law. Although it happens at a certain time, it does not happen "in time," i.e., one cannot calculate the time when it will happen. The court is in session whenever the judge has come; the judge does not come at the time of the session. It is his coming that defines the time, not vice-versa. But if so, then one will never know when God is coming; it is only when he has come that one realizes that he has come. But then it is too late; hence, the parable of the Lord’s coming as the thief’s.

What about the signs? These are accompanying, not preceding, signs. Were they indeed preceding, then they would not be signs. Even more: one could be fooled. Hence again the Lord’s cautionary statements that we not be "led astray." The signs function as the clerk of the court who heralds the entrance of the judge into the courtroom. There is no functional time between the announcement and the procession of the judge. The attendees’ standing up is also a sign of the judge’s entrance, but their rising can hardly be considered as a sign that would allow anyone to take action or prepare oneself. A sign is not a countdown; a countdown can stop at the last second as often happens at the launching of a rocket or a space shuttle. Notice how, throughout the 20th century, people who have considered the signs as the beginning of a countdown have been fooled time and again. A sign is rather the assurance that what has all along been expected has come. The sign is (end) news: good news for those who believed the one who had forewarned that a certain event would pass and readied themselves for it, and bad news for those who did not believe, or believed and did not heed. When the sign is there, it is already too late for anyone or anything.

But if it is so, then why mention signs at all? Simply because the signs point backward, not forward. They trigger in our minds the words of the one who had foretold the coming event and thus invites us to realize, not that the event is taking place -- this is pure tautology: something is happening because it is happening -- but rather that the prophet who uttered those words is indeed truthful:

From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away (Mk 13:28-31).

And if he is truthful, then the judgment about to hit us, for good or for bad, is not only just, but also well deserved. Therefore, we are to watch, not with the intent of computing the time of the end, but rather that we not fall under condemnation for having fallen asleep and thus for not having watched:

But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Watch therefore -- for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning -- lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Watch (Mk 13:32-37).

Fr Paul Nadim Tarazi
at Orthodox Education Day 1999