Inspired men did teach that the Lord is coming again; but when men affirm that the Holy Spirit taught the early Christians to expect the Lord to come the second time in their day, they virtually accuse the Holy Spirit of raising hopes that they knew would not be realized. We would expect infidels to argue that inspired men taught things that turned out not to be true. But the idea is so abhorrent to any one who believes in the infallibility of the Holy Spirit and the absolute truthfulness of everything he taught that it seems that no one could for a moment regard it as a harmless guess or as a matter about which we need not be concerned. However, if the apostles did teach such doctrine, we will have to acknowledge that they did, even though it leads us to discredit the certainty of their teaching. But did they teach it? Is there any justice, reason, or foundation for putting them under such a cloud of suspicion? Emphatically, no! An argument to support the theory is built on a misunderstanding of the word “hope.” We are told that the apostles taught the early Christians to hope for the Lord’s coming, and that hope is made up of desire and expectation, all of which is true. But they assume that to hope for a thing is to expect it immediately, or at any moment. Their own contention on the word “hope” robs them of any hope of a millenial kingdom; for they all contend that the Jews must return to Palestine, Rome be developed again into a great empire, and then some years of great tribulation must pass before the millenial kingdom is set up. With their idea of hope, they can hope for nothing except that which may occur at any moment. But they are wrong in their contention on hope. We plant a crop, hoping for a good harvest; but no one is simple enough to think the harvest may come at any moment. The man who gives a large sum of money to build a college or hospital hopes to benefit generations unborn. We may lend, hoping to receive. Certainly no one makes a loan expecting the return at any moment. They are, therefore, wrong in assuming that imminency inheres in expectancy. And they are wrong also as to the basis of expectation. Expectation must have more than conjecture, more than mere probability, for a basis. I earnestly desire the Lord to come while I live, but I do not expect him to do so, for I have nothing on which to base such an expectation. But you ask, “Do you not think that the Lord might come while you live?” Certainly, but expectation must be based on something more substantial than what may or may not be. If the Lord should plainly tell me that he would come while I live, I would have grounds for expecting him to come before I die. But the Lord has never told any generation that he would come during the life of that generation, and for that reason no one has ever expected the Lord to come while he lived. If the apostles had taught the early Christians that the Lord would come in their day, then they could have expected him to come.