Robert H. Gundry rightly notes that the purifying influence of Jesus’s return is not some supposed “unexpected moment” of Jesus’s return but rather:
[O]ur whole life will pass in review before the Lord. . . . The character and consequences of an event determine its motivating force much more than the time of its occurrence. Although we recognize the necessity of an intervening period, the delay does not lessen our anticipation. The certainty, the character, and the blessedness of our Lord’s return make for us a glorious prospect which no interval of time can dim. Must we stop looking for Christ Himself, then, and begin to look for the intervening events? Hardly, because looking for a preceding series of events does not exclude looking likewise for Jesus’ personal return immediately following. Expectancy of the Parousia depends, not upon the temporal factor, but upon an eagerness to see our Lord face to face, an eagerness intervening events cannot diminish if our love for Him is genuine. Besides, the intervening events play a positive role in our looking for Jesus Himself. Rather than diverting our attention from the second coming, they direct our attention to it. For they are guideposts, warnings, confirmations of faith, incitements to readiness, encouragements for our anticipation. The return of Christ is the goal toward which they point. The coming to pass of definite signs that harbinger His return will intensify expectancy more than a vague “any moment” which has lain dormant for almost two thousand years (emphasis his). (Church and the Tribulation, 40–41)
