The Parousia
March 5th, 2008 by Sean
Parousia is the Greek word for “coming” and it is often used to refer to the second coming of Jesus. Last night in my class on Understanding the Christian Worldview, we talked about the Second Coming of Jesus (listen to part one or part two online). In the course of preparing to speak on this subject I came across a few articles in Bible dictionaries that I thought were insightful, invigorating, and worthwhile. The first is from the Hastings’ Dictionary which is very liberal. The second is from the New Bible Dictionary which is middle of the road. The last is from the Wycliffe Dictionary which is very conservative. What struck me was the level of agreement between these three different sources. In particular it is clear that Jesus is coming in order to resurrect the saints, defeat evil, and establish his Kingdom. What an exciting event to look forward to.
Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (2000) p. 682
The ‘appearance,’ Advent, or Second Coming of Christ at the end of ‘this age’ in order to establish his Kingdom…The Messianic interpretation given to Jesus by the Apostles was essentially eschatological. No one of them understood him to be engaged in the work of establishing the Kingdom of God during the period culminating in his death. He was the Christ in the sense that (a) he was anointed (empowered) by God to deliver men; (b) he was gathering and preparing men for his Kingdom; (c) he died and rose to manifest the justice and love of God, and thus save those who accepted him as Christ; (d) he would return to conquer Satan, judge both the living and the dead, and establish his kingdom either in heaven or on a renewed earth.…The order of events awaited is the decent of Jesus with his angels from the upper heavens to the lower; the sounding of the trumpet and the voice of the archangel which will summon the dead from Sheol; the giving to the saints of the body of the resurrection; the catching up of the living saints, who have been changed in the twinkling of an eye, to meet Jesus and the risen saints in the air; the general judgment of both living and dead; the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom, which, after a period of struggle is to be victorious over the kingdom of Satan; and finally the fixing of the eternal supremacy of God.
The New Bible Dictionary (1982) p. 345
Christian hope is focused on the coming of Christ, which may be called his ‘second’ coming (Heb. 9.28). Thus the OT term, ‘the day of the Lord,’ which the NT uses for the event of final fulfillment (1 Thes 5.2; 2 Thes 2.2; 2 Pet 3.10; cf. ‘the day of God,’ 2 Pet 3.12; ‘the great day of God the Almighty,’ Rev 16.14), is characteristically ‘the day of the Lord Jesus’ (1 Cor 5.5; 2 Cor 1.14; cf. 1 Cor 1.8; Phil 1.6, 10; 2.16).The coming of Christ is called his parousia (‘coming’), his apokalypsis (‘revelation’) and his epiphaneia (‘appearing’). The word parousia means ‘presence’ or ‘arrival,’ and was used in Hellenistic Greek of the visits of gods and rulers. Christ’s parousia will be a personal coming of the same Jesus of Nazareth who ascended into heaven (Acts 1.11); but it will be a universally evident event (Mat 24.27), a coming in power and glory (Mat 24.30), to destroy Antichrist and evil (2 Thes 2.8), to gather his people, living and dead (Mat 24.31; 1 Cor 15.23; 1 Thes 4.14-17; 2 Thes 2.1), and to judge the world (Mat 25.31; Jas 5.9).
His coming will also be an apokalypsis, an ‘unveiling’ or ‘disclosure,’ when the power and glory which are now his by virtue of his exaltation and heavenly session (Phil 2.9; Eph 1.20-23; Heb 2.9) will be disclosed to the world. Christ’s reign as Lord, now invisible to the world, will then be made visible by his apokalypsis.
The Wycliffe Dictionary of Theology (2000) p. 477
To be sure, parousia, the most frequently used, is an ordinary word indicating arrival or consequent presence (Phil 1.26), but as applied to Christ it is doubtless intended to have a somewhat technical force such as it has in the Hellenistic age for denoting the arrival of a king or a person of prominence (see MM). The other terms are picturesque. Of these apokalypsis (2 Thes 1.7) means an unveiling, and thus takes account of Christ’s withdrawal to heaven before his final denouement [finale, finish, end, etc.] (cf. Col 3.3-4, where the verb phaneroo has much the same force). Similarly, the verb ophthesetai (he shall appear), used in Heb 9.28, is chosen with the background of the tabernacle and the Day of Atonement ritual in view, when the high priest emerged before the people after being in the most holy place. The word apokalypsis connotes more than visibility in contrast to invisibility. It suggests the consummation of God’s purpose and the sharing of the saints in it. Then shall we know even as we have been known. Finally, epiphaneia (2 Tim 4.1) suggests the public, open character of Christ’s appearing. It readily associates with itself the idea of glory (Titus 2.13), and is suitable for suggesting an appearing which is sudden, conspicuous, and overwhelming in its effects on hostile powers (2 Thes 2.8).As to the purpose of the return, apart from a special significance for Israel (Zec 12.10; Rom 11.26), this may be viewed broadly in two aspects. As related to the saints, it will mean their gathering unto Christ, both the dead and the living (1 Thes 4.13-18), together with such transformation as will be necessary to fit the living for glory (Phil 3.21). The Lord will be admired among those who believe (2 Thes 1.10), and he will reward his servants (1 Cor 4.5; Rev 22.12). With respect to the world, Christ’s coming will bring judgment upon ungodly men and doom upon Satan’s kingdom, resulting in the establishment of a reign of righteousness and peace (2 Thes 2.8-10; 1 Cor 15.23-26; 2 Pet 3.10-13).
Hi Sean,
the Hastings paragraph seems to have “the general judgment of both living and dead” prior to “the establishment of the Messianic Kingdom” … is this in accordance with Rev 20:4-11?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
how do “the parousia” and the so-called “Millenial Kingdom” (also sometimes called “Messianic Kingdom”, “1000 year reign of Christ”, etc) relate to each other? Is Christ’s reign 1000 years or just 1 day (if the supposed “God’s timing” of 1 day=1000 years calculation is applied?
Or is Christ’s reign actually “for ever” and not limited to 1000 years … cp Lk 1,32-33 (” … and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: 33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” ? IF there is “no end” to Christ’s reign/kingdom from the throne of David, how do some then claim that Christ will only reign for 1000 years from that throne (which they place as a literal throne in the earthly city of Jerusalem) and after that millenial reign somehow the world / age /or whatever they call it then is finished and “eternity” starts?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
in response to #1, I agree with you that this is slightly out of order.
in response to #2, the parousia is the event in which Jesus comes to earth in order to establish the kingdom, therefore the kingdom must follow not precede the parousia.
Dear Sean,
so then Jesus reigns before the general resurrection and judgement has happened? during the millenial kingdom it seems there are believers and unbelievers … what happens to those who live and die during that period? will those believers not die? or be changed when they physically die? or go to gravedom and await the general resurrection after the millenim at the great white throne judgment? Will the great white throne judgment only be a judgment of the unjust?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
The parousia is the catalyst of the kingdom of God. At his return the man of sin is killed and Jesus begins to take control over the world until all nations are under his reign. The parousia is a visible event in Scripture. It is not going to be secretive. There are many details that are not told to us. But what is clear is that as Jesus went into heaven, in like manner he shall return (Acts 1.11). This would exclude the notion that he came as Titus in a.d. 70. Furthermore, the whole point of why Jesus is coming, as opposed to staying in heaven, is to establish the kingdom of God, to fulfill his destiny as described in Ps 2.6-8; 1 Chrn 17.11-14; Luke 1.31-33. In other words, he will rule the world from Jerusalem. This is why he is coming, to set things right on earth.
As to your millennial questions, there’s a lot we can only speculate about without really knowing for sure. Mortals will obviously die during that time, however there will likely be a way for them to attain eternal life, but I sure don’t know how that will work. In this case all of these mortals (along with everyone else that is dead) will be resurrected at the end of the thousand years.
Hi Sean,
thanks for your further note. I was wondering about the following comment
From Acts 1, we know that Jesus did NOT visibly ascend into heaven, but was taken from the apostles’ view by a cloud … thus his ascension to heaven was actually “invisible”. In like manner then, his coming is also associated with “clouds” which do conceal rather than reveal … and I often wonder, why so many seem to think that Jesus’ coming is a visible event, as if he was gliding down visibly like the spaceshuttle or something in the sky …
As for AD70, I’ve not heard about anyone claiming that “Jesus came as Titus” …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
” And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them.”
He was lifted up - and they saw him go up - which is why they are gazing intently up to the sky. He went up until they could not see him anymore because a cloud received him. And we can’t see him now. So let’s reverse the process: He comes down, out of the clouds, while we gazing intently at the sky until his feet come back down on the mount of Olives.
Seems pretty simple.
yes, he would have to reach the cloud via vertical ascent before the cloud could obscure their vision of him.
please note the words used to talk of his coming=>epiphaneia, ophthesetai, apokalypsis…these all imply visual. Even so, Jesus himself said it wasn’t a secret coming but a grand cosmic event…cf. Mat 24.27-31 because of which all the tribes of people will mourn.
Some verses that indicate the coming will be visible, it will result in resurrection of the saints, judgment to the world, and that it is the Christian hope (i.e. if it already happened then we have nothing to look forward too)
. Mk 8.38; Lk 9.26 (the Son of Man comes in the glory of his Father and with the holy angels and he will be ashamed of those who are ashamed of Jesus)
. Mt 16.27 (rewards according to deeds are given when he comes)
. Mt 24.27-28 (visible like lightning or birds circling a carcass)
. Mk 13.26; Mt 24.29-31 (son of man comes in the clouds accompanied by cosmic signs, the tribes of the earth mourn, while the angels gather together the elect)
. Mt 24.36-39 (it will come suddenly, no one knows the day or hour, just like the flood in the time of Noah)
. Acts 1.11 (this Jesus who has been taken up will come in just the same way)
. Acts 3.19-21 (God will send Christ who is in heaven until the restoration process begins.)
. Acts 17.31 (God has fixed a day in which he will judge the world through a man) here the parousia is implied but not explicitly stated
. 1 Cor 1.7-8 (we await his revelation eagerly; he will confirm us to the end)
. 1 Cor 15.23 (the resurrection of the saints occurs at the coming of Christ)
. 1 Cor 15.51-53 (in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, will be the resurrection to immortality) here the parousia is not mentioned but the resurrection is clearly tied to parousia in 1 Thes 4.15-17
. 1 Thes 4.15-17 (the lord will descend with a shout and trumpet, the resurrection of the saints will occur and then those who will be alive will be caught up to meet them (the resurrected saints) in the air)
. 2 Thes 1.6-10 (when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, he will deal out retribution to those who do not know God and those who do not obey the gospel when he comes to be glorified in his saints in vindication)
. 2 Thes 2.1-4 (the coming of Jesus will not come until after the apostasy occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed)
. 2 Thes 2.8 (the lawless one will be slain by the breath of the Lord’s mouth and brought to an end by the appearance of his coming)
. 2 Tim 4.1 (Christ Jesus will judge the living and the dead at his appearing when his kingdom comes)
. Tit 2.13 (the appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ is our blessed hope for which we look)
. Heb 9.28 (Jesus will appear a second time not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him)
. 1 Pet 1.7 (our faith will result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ)
. 1 Pet 1.13 (fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought at the revelation of Jesus Christ)
. 1 Pet 4.13 (to the degree you share the sufferings of Christ you may rejoice with exultation at the revelation of his glory)
. 2 Pet 3.4, 10-12 (the day will come suddenly, like a thief, and there will be cataclysmic destruction when it arrives)
. Rev 11.15 (the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ) here the parousia is not mentioned but it is clear that in order for the kingdom to come, Jesus must come (i.e. he is the king cf. Mat 25.31).)
. Rev 19 (marriage of the lamb has come (v7) and Jesus comes on the horse with a “sharp sword” coming out of his mouth with which he will strike down the nations and rule them with a rod of iron (v15). The last great battle is described in which Jesus defeats the forces of evil and the millennium begins.)
So, is this a vapor cloud (ie: rain cloud) or a large dense multitude (ie: throng of people or angels)?
Nephos: a cloud, 1. a large dense multitude, 2. a throng
used to denote a great shapeless collection of vapour obscuring the heavens as opposed to a particular and definite masses of vapour with some form or shape 3. a cloud in the sky
Acts 1:9 says a cloud “received” him. Recieved (Hupolambano): to take up and carry away. Can a rain cloud carry away?
Luke 21:27
And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.
Here is says the Son of man will be seen at his coming. It doesn’t give much of a clue about the cloud, though. Funny thing that I’ve heard said: “It’s not cloudy today, so Jesus ain’t comin’ back today!” That funny when your from Arizona.
Heb 12:1
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
Here a cloud is the example of the Hebrew Scripture faithful. (Obviously easily understood by the preposition ‘of witnesses’.)
1Thess 4:17
Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
So this ‘cloud’ could be the rain type or the multitude of resurrected believers. Being “in the air” is the place where rain clouds are but it also happens to be where we gather with the Messiah.
Either way, Jesus’ coming will be seen and heard as Matt 22:27 and on states:
24:27
For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
24:28
For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
24:29
Immediately * * after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
24:31
And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other *.
This lightning coming out of the east will “shine” unto the west.
Phaino (shine): to bring forth into the light, cause to shine, shed light shine to shine, be bright or resplendent to become evident, to be brought forth into the light, come to view, appear
of growing vegetation, to come to light to appear, be seen exposed to view to meet the eyes, strike the sight, become clear or manifest
to be seen, appear to appear to the mind, seem to one’s judgment or opinion
“Shine” is a visable verb.
Also, how can the “tribes of the earth morn” unless the see the “sign of the Son of man in heaven”? And again, “they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. “
oh sure …. the coming of the Son of man is said to be visible … but how is it seen? what is seen? are the effects of it seen? is the man Jesus / the person seen traveling (”flying”) through the skies (for example, as one would see an airplane or a bird fly) ?
have you all ever given this more thought, such as from what distance one can actually “see” (in a literal sense) a person of normal size of a human being in the air? even with binoculours, one could see a person in the sky only from within a certain corridor of a few miles’ width and only after he has descended already quite a bit (compare watching when a sky diver jumps out of a plane)? Do you really think the Scriptures are talking about Jesus coming on a cloud through the skies down to earth and all people on earth will literally “see” him coming down?
Is it not far more plausible that the language used in the descriptions of the event of the Lord’s coming is apocalyptic figurative? It seems rather clear to me that the Scriptures are NOT speaking literally of the man Christ Jesus flying through the air, perhaps sitting or standing on a cloud, and then the cloud dissolving so that all people of the earth can see him at once (which is plainly impossible anyways!)
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
I think we need to take a look at Acts 1.11 again.
If his return is figurative then his ascension is figurative. Furthermore, if the ascension was figurative then the apostles talking to Jesus on the Mt. of Olives was figurative, etc.
Jesus is really coming. He is really going to make this place right. He is really going to establish his kingdom and resurrect the faith and conquer the nations of the world. It does sound fantastic, but so does resurrection and for that we have solid evidence.
Hi Sean,
neither Jesus’ ascension or coming again are figurative … what does involve figures of speech is the language used to describe the event. Example, “a cloud took him from their sight” is obviously figurative language, seeing that a cloud doesn’t “take” anyone literally … the truth conveyed by such language is that Jesus became invisible to them when he ascended up.
We must be careful to understand the use of figures of speech in language correctly … Your comments above seem to indicate that you were thinking that I was saying that “the events” were figurative, when I did say nothing of the kind. The events themselves, which are described emphatically by the use of figurative language, do not become figurative just because figure of speech is used to describe them.
So then, do you really think that Jesus will literally fly on a cloud and then descend out of a cloud through the air (sort of like we are used to when watching sky divers) ? how will even all people in one small part of one country see him, not to think of “all people of all tribes in the land”? You know, it’s sort of quite cold up there in the clouds … humans don’t survive there very well either under normal circumstances (ever looked at a temperature indicator in an airplane flying at 30 000 feet?) Also, one would be rather wet in those literal “rain type of” clouds without some kind of waterproof flying suit ….
What do you think?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
PS: I don’t mean to make fun of things, it is however rather obvious that thinking about certain things in a literal manner does produce sort of ridiculous scenarios at times …. (not too different from things in reference to the trinity doctrine when people are talking about a “3-person-one-godhead” concept, etc … which also leads to ridiculous scenarios when looked at in a bit more detail and with simple logical reasoning
Wolfgang, you said:
The cloud literally did take him from their sight. I guess I just don’t get the figurative approach. Where is there a need for a figure? Jesus is talking to his disciples (not figurative). Jesus begins to ascend (not figurative). He disappears into the clouds (figurative?). Why not just believe what it says?
I believe Jesus is coming back. That is to say he will descend in like manner to when he ascended in Acts chapter 1. He went up physically, visibly, in full view and he will come back “in like manner.” If that makes me unreasonable or fundamentalist or whatever then that’s fine, I just don’t see another way of interpreting this. How exactly everyone will be able to see him, I have no idea. Many have speculated different things but we’ll just have to wait and see, the language is clear.
I do not understand the parousia texts to be ridiculous. They are perfectly reasonable to me. Remember God is capable of doing the miraculous including send his son back through the clouds to touch down on the earth.
Hi Sean,
as for your comment
Neither do I think that the biblical texts concerning the parousia are ridiculous … BUT certain interpretations given to them most certainly appear ridiculous and/or unreasonable and illogical ….
And, yes, I remember that God can do the miraculous … BUT I don’t think that pointing to God’s abilities to do the miraculous can be given as explanation for seemingly illogical, unreasonable and even ridiculous interpretations of Scripture (such as, is done, for example, by folks at times when they interpret verses to supposedly prove that Jesus is BOTH God and man, or other things ….)
I do think that there are obviously differences between our understanding because of our differing understanding of what figures of speech are and how and for what purpose figures of speech are used in language … Now, I do think it is very important for a person to have some accurate understanding of figures of speech, else they will not be able to understand language correctly (this applies not only to Biblical texts and Biblical language, but language in general) … and, be sure, I am not “trying to pull your leg” here, and that not just because I couldn’t do so whereas your little son or your wife could actually do so
Cheers, and have a nice weekend
Wolfgang
I guess I just don’t see the need to interpret the parousia Scriptures figuratively or metaphorically or whatever. The train of thought seems perfectly sensible to me. Jesus ascended to heaven (literally). Jesus is destined to rule on earth from the throne of David (Luke 1.31-33; Ps 2.6-8). Therefore, Jesus needs to come back to earth from heaven (literally). Even if we had no Scriptures saying that Jesus was coming back we could deduce this, but as I demonstrated earlier, there are dozens of verses, in fact so many that one could say that the early Christian future centered on the return of Christ.
Hi Sean,
I am a bit surprised that you don’t see any difficulties with your interpretation of the various parousia related texts … especially in light of the fact that in other places you seem to have refuted dispensationalism theology and yet concerning their big point of a coming dispensation of national Israel being restored with Jesus reigning from a literal throne in Jerusalem as a political ruler. you adhere to dispensationalist theology?
Also, I wonder how you understand this “throne of David” in a literal way … what is that throne of David? is it the same piece of furniture David was sitting on when he reigned? a new piece of furniture that actually would not really be that throne David sat on but a new throne that is put somewhere in Jerusalem where the original David’s throne was situated? but then, where in Jerusalem was that place?
You mention Lk 1,31ff …. in those verses, the angel spoke of Jesus reigning “FOR EVER”, which would be quite different from a “millenial kingdom”, would it not? I am surprised there as well that you see no difficulty with such apparent discrepancy between what is stated there and what has been said about “millenial kingdom” after Jesus’ parousia …
Have a wonderful day
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang, here are my responses to the points you raised.
To my knowledge dispensationalism has nothing to do with believing in a literal parousia and the subsequent restoration of the davidic kingdom by God’s messiah. Dispensationalism is rooted in the belief that there are two destinies for the people of God: one for Israel and one for the church. Dispensationalists also believe that the gospel of the kingdom is not for the church but for Israel whereas the church should be concerned about the gospel of the cross. I disagree with them on this point too. I believe the gospel includes both the kingdom and the cross along with a call for repentance (and belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah by virtue of his resurrection).
The throne of David is the rule of a davidic king (i.e. a descendant of David’s royal blood line) ruling from the city of David (i.e. Zion or Jerusalem).
I believe Jesus will rule into the age. The word forever is the Greek word aionias which means age. Jesus will rule until the age completes. Even so, I’m sure that even after the millennium Jesus will still be regard as the Messiah even though God himself has come down to dwell with his people (Rev. 21-22).
—————————————————————-
However, none of these objections seriously dislodges the biblical idea of parousia–that Jesus is coming back to earth. I do not find it convincing to believe that Jesus came in a vision in a.d. 70 because this is not the sense of Acts 1.11. Furthermore the resurrection and the kingdom did not come in a.d. 70. As I understand it you believe Jesus already has returned. If this is so then he is here–on earth–somewhere. Where is he? Furthermore if Jesus (or God for that matter) is in fact ruling (i.e. the kingdom has come), then God is either impotent or cruel. If he is impotent (that is, he is a weak ruler) then this would contradict a host of Scripture that indicates God is powerful (i.e. almighty). If he is cruel and wishes for all of these genocides, murders, rapes, childhood diseases, etc. to occur even though he has the power to stop them then he is not the God of the Bible who loves his people. The whole biblical solution to the problem of evil has always been based on the principle of delayed gratification in the sense that one can say, “yes, I know that bad things continue to happen, but one day, ONE DAY, God will have a time of reckoning in which the wicked of all time will be judged and his chosen people will be vindicated and restored to live with him in resurrected bodies.
Do you believe that Jesus came back in a.d. 70?
Hi Sean,
thanks for your answers with clarifications concerning my questions. In you above post you mention a few things on which I would like to comment
I’ve never heard of anyone teaching that Jesus “came in a vision” …. to whom was such a vision supposedly given? I read of Jesus calling what the three apostles saw on the mount (commonly called the “transfiguration”) to have been “a vision”, but I have never read in Scripture nor anywhere else that the coming of the Son of man, Jesus’ return, to be “a vision” …
Indeed, they did not become a reality in the sense you are expecting them … however, does that mean that they are not a reality now? I read that Paul considered himself and the believers in the 1st century to be part of Jesus’ kingdom (have been translated into the kingdom of his dear son … cp Col 1). I read about Jesus placing these events as happening “at the end of the wolrd (age)” …which biblical age did he live in? was he speaking about the age in which lived and its end? or was he speaking about the end of a yet future age which had not even begun when he was speaking? if the latter, why did he not point that out and spoke as if it would be at the end of the age in which he lived? which age did he live in? was his the age “under the OT Law”? (cp Gal … “made under the Law”? If we today still live in that same biblical age, should we not adhere to the OT Law and its services at the physical temple, etc.?
See above … your argument is based on the tenent that Jesus must be present physically / in person “here on earth” and that the resurrection is somewhat “a physical event”, and that the kingdom is “of a worldly nature”, that is, a political type of reign over people living in a physical world on planet earth.
I understand that such does not necessarily have to be the understanding of the various scriptures concerning the coming of the Son of man, the resurrection, or the kingdom / rule. In particular, it seems clear to me from an overall scope of the Scriptures that the biblical age of a physical temple made of stones and its physical services as foreshadows is over (cp various sections in Hebrews) and the age of the spiritual realities has come. …
Jesus spoke at length about his coming and connected it with judgment upon “this evil generation”, even pointed out that this coming and judgment would be seen by all tribes of the land, that it would involve the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem and devastation of the city of Jerusalem and disperson of the Israelites among the nations. He also testified before Pilate that he acutally was a king/ a ruler / but NOT in a political sense. He furthermore assured that some of those who heard him give those prophecies would actually live to see these events come to pass. Jesus did not prophesy that he would return “to earth” in the sense of living again on earth, Jesus did not prophesy of any re-establishing of the nation of Israel, instead he prophesied that their place would be left to them desolate.
Now, as long as the idea of a political kingdom on earth, a resurrection of the dead in a physical manner, etc. determined my attempts to understand those Scriptures, I also concluded that these events could not have happened yet and swept aside or left as unexplainable the clear passages which spke of the “end of the age” and its events. When I noticed that the premise of my interpretation/understanding was causing the apparent contradictions” between what I understood and what the texts said, I re-evaluated my premise …
Did Jesus’ predictions concerning the events of the end of the age with destruction of the temple and city of Jerusalem come to pass? Was that evil generation judged and were the faithful who had lost their lives at the hands of those wicked avenged? Were some of those who heard Jesus prophesy?
Re-evaluating my understanding of the biblical truths, I would say that Jesus’ prophecies did come to pass in AD70 as prophesied. Otherwise, can you show where another temple is to be built in order to be destroyed? is another system of worship in a physical temple to be re-invented after having been abolished in favor of a spiritual nature worship of God? etc etc
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
I will answer your last comment more thoroughly when I get some more time, but for now I am very curious about this one thing:
What do you have to look forward to if biblical hope has already occurred (i.e. the parousia, the resurrection, the judgment of the wicked, the reward to the righteous, and the kingdom have already come)?
Hi Sean,
I have to look forward to that which is promised to believers as being a reality after the coming of the Son of man has happened, after the resurrection from the dead is a reality, etc. => living eternal life in the presence of God and my Lord.
The problem is in what is being defined and understood as being “the biblical hope” … I used to speak of and think that “the coming of the Lord” was our hope. Well, then I realized one day that the coming of the Lord is NOT spoken of as being a happy occasion at all, rather it is greatly emphasized as having its main effect on the wicked of that generation who rejected the Messiah and persecuted his followers.
Your question sort of reminded me of the Jews who are placing themselves as living before the birth of the Messiah and who hope for his (what we would call “first” coming), and who ask, what are you looking forward to if the Messiah has already come and gone?
I read in 1Co 15 and 1Th 4 about what will happen with those Christian believers who remain / are alive at his coming and after the resurrection has happened and become a reality => that they will not go to hades after the end of their earthly physical life to await a resurrection (because hades has been destroyed) but that they will be changed and be with the Lord without having to wait in gravedom.
My hope is the same as was the hope of any believer at any time => to have eternal life (life into the ages) in the presence of God Almighty.
Now, prior to the Messiah’s achievements and prior to the end of that age while hades was yet a reality and the resurrection from the dead (unto eternal life for believers, unto judgment for unbelievers) was not yet a reality, people physically died and went to gravedom waiting for the time when the resurrection would become a reality and they would be raised to have eternal life. With the coming / return of the Messiah at the end of that age, hades is destroyed and those who were in hades have been raised and the resurrection is reality, and all living at the time and thereafter will not go to hades any longer at the time of their physical death, but will be changed and “caught up” to ever be with the Lord to enjoy eternal life in the presence of God.
It seems to me that very unfortunately, most of Christianity is rather “earth / physical” minded in their expectations and their hope … and vast systems of eschatologocal theologies are developed with mostly speculation about what it will be like on earth and how wonderful things on earth will be and what they all will be doing sort of assisting the Lord in his kingdom and “finally getting back at the devil” …. It seems that Christianity at large is living by or for a hope that is really not biblically based.
For one, people are pretty much disregarding the clear statements made by the Lord Jesus and his apostles concerning the end of their age …. by interpreting passages as if we today were still living in that age, which was characterized by the OT Law and a physical temple with its services, etc. Many things relating to the coming of the Lord are interpreted in a literal manner and then — based on human experience ! — it is claimed that what is interpreted has not come to pass and therefore the end of the age and the coming of the Lord etc must be still future. (Yet, those same people sure like the idea of no longer a physical temple with obligations of OT Law being followed, etc … a lot in inconsistency)
On the other hand, there are those denominations and groups who teach an immediate “going to heaven” BUT without the last day and the resurrection having become a reality. They base their idea of believers “going to be with God” at their death on the false idea of an “immortal soul” and believe in a later resurrection (or whatever type of re-uniting of body and soul) and subsequent eternal life.
What happened to the overall picture we are given in Hebrews and also other passages which contrast the “Old world” with its physical temple and servies etc to the spiritual realities of the “new world” where there is NO more a physical temple nor any physical services etc …. What happened to the contrast set forth between the old Jerusalem and the new Jerusalem, the earthly Jerusalem and the heavenly Jerusalem … neither of which are a physical city, but rather a people ?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
“It seems to me that very unfortunately, most of Christianity is rather “earth / physical” minded in their expectations and their hope”
I only wish that Christianity was concerned about the earthly creation like we should care that God is going to fix up his creation. Sadly they all care about escaping to heaven.
Wolfgang,
Indeed, they did not become a reality in the sense you are expecting them … however, does that mean that they are not a reality now?
I have a few comments to offer on this point. You said that they [the resurrection and the kingdom] did not happen as I was expecting them to happen in a.d. 70. But, it doesn’t matter what I expect, it matter what the Bible tells everyone to expect. The biblical hope is that God will one day defeat evil and return the earth to paradise that will be repopulated with his resurrected saints. This is what we call the kingdom of God.
Perhaps you have some questions about the Scriptures that teach the resurrection. In the OT there are a few places, but none as conspicuous as Dan 12.2; Is 25.6-8; Is 26.19 (not to mention a number of the Psalms). Furthermore, the NT holds out the experience of Jesus of Nazareth as an example for us to follow. He is the first fruits of those who sleep (1 Cor 15.21-23). In other words if Jesus was literally raised from the dead then we too shall literally be raised from the dead.
In regards to the kingdom of God, the OT is replete with scores of verses that talk about the final time when God will defeat evil and establish his righteous rule on earth. Remember earth is not bad, it is good yet corrupted. God made the earth. He does not abandon the earth. He is so powerful that he can actually fix it up–restore it (Acts 3.21)–to it primordial, Edenic state. God made the earth and called it good 7x in Gen 1&2. He made it to be inhabited not a waste place (Is 45.18). If the earth ends up depopulated then Satan wins. God is so brilliant and creative that he devised “the Jesus plan” which resulted in the forgiveness of sins to those who repent and the eventual restoration of the earth when Jesus comes again. The kingdom of God is all about the land (cf. Ps 37 wherein 7x the land is to be inherited by the righteous; not to mention Mat 5.5). Furthermore, Dan 2 and Dan 7 make it clear that the kingdom of God is going to be manifested on earth when it will defeat the other kingdoms yet it will itself endure forever being populated by the people of God. The two grand promises of the OT (outside of the Mosaic covenant) are the promise to Abraham that HE and his descendants would inherit the land and the promise to David that one of his descendants would rule over the land. Both of these promises are broken if preterism is true. Abraham goes to heaven rather than inheriting the land in which he sojourned. David’s promise is broken because Jesus has never ruled on the throne of David. He was rejected by the rulers and crucified for claiming to be the messiah. The only way for Jesus to be vindicated and for all of this to work out is if Jesus does come back (for real) in the future to resurrect the saints (John 5.28-29), defeat the forces of evil (2 Thes 2; Dan 7.13-27), establish his Father’s kingdom (Mat 25.31-33), and apportion out the land to be ruled over by the people of God (Rev 2.26-28; 1 Cor 6.2; Mat 19.28-29; 2 Tim 2.12; Rev 20.6). If this all happens then Abraham will be resurrected (along with his descendants, and we are his descendant if we have been baptized into Christ: Gal 3.27-29) and David’s promise will be fulfilled, that is, Jesus will actually rule over the world from Jerusalem. If Jesus does not fulfill the messianic prophecies (Is 11; Is 9.7; Ps 110; Ps 2; etc.) then he is not the messiah. He is an impostor and the Jews are right to say that he was at best a martyr and at worst a godless heretic. May it never be! Jesus (as Richard Pratt has so eloquently put it) has done enough for us to believe that when he comes he will do the rest (i.e. actually rule as Messiah).
I think it is clear that Paul regarded the kingdom primarily as the event that occurs in the end when Jesus returns. NT Wright does very well in explaining how Paul thinks about the kingdom of God (especially how he can talk about certain present aspects coming into this age from the age to come even though the kingdom is not yet here). The kingdom does come at the end of the age. However, the age does not end with the ending of the old covenant and the ratification of the new covenant. Besides, that didn’t happen in a.d. 70 anyhow. The new covenant was ratified forty years earlier when Jesus died on the cross. So that interpretation doesn’t work. The age in question is the “Olam Ha Ba,” the age to come, the time spoken of in Dan 12.2 when it talks about the resurrection resulting in the “chayim olam” (life of the age to come), the time when the wolf dwells with the lamb, when peace is established and the people of the world study war no more. Paul is not saying that the kingdom of God came in his lifetime (that contradicts your a.d. 70 thesis anyhow) but he does say that we have already been transferred into the kingdom of Christ–that is to say–we are by virtue of the work of Christ on the cross–already transferred to be members/citizens of the kingdom (even though it is not here yet).
Again, I must repeat the instruction of the angels, “This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven” (Acts 1.11). Jesus physically, visibly ascended and so he will descend physically and visibly. It will not be a ghost or something “spiritual” but the actual Jesus. Also, I object to you saying that I think the kingdom is “of a worldly nature.” The kingdom is not worldly. In the Bible worldly means aligned with the god of this world/age, Satan (i.e. corrupt, unjust, violent, etc.). The kingdom of God is called “of God” because it is God’s, it originates with him and therefore it is not worldly, but holy and pure. That however, does not nullify the simple fact that God’s kingdom is coming to earth. Remember, earth is not inherently bad. That is gnosticism creeping in. The earthy is fundamentally good. God made it. The kingdom is God’s plan to set the world right. Satan is not fond of this idea because it means the end of his rule and beginning of God’s (Rev 11.15). There is nothing evil or bad about a political kingdom. It is a good thing. It is the destiny of Jesus and it is exactly what the world needs. We need someone to come and establish justice and equity and punish the wicked and vindicate the afflicted (Is 11). One of the major problems that many of us have with the idea that all of this has already happened is that it makes for a vacuous hope. In other words, the kingdom came and the resurrection and the parousia but the world was unchanged, or one could even say the world grew steadily worse.
Well said Sean!
I don’t see how the preterist position is remotely tenable with the world being the way it is today. Satan has not been bound and does roam the earth as the “god” of this age seeking to “devour” all he can. Having Jesus’s return be the invading Roman army of 70 A.D. just doesn’t fit the complete picture of all of scripture, regardless of how one wants to attempt to “spin” it. Indeed the whole view (IMO) smacks of gnosticism and paganism (with a resurrection of believers to immortality in heaven at death).
And besides that, preterism stands or falls on the dating of John writing Revelation. For the preterist, it must be BEFORE 70 A.D. (obviously). But the vast majority of biblical scholars firmly believe that it came much later since all known evidence points to an origin decades later somewhere around 95 A.D..
For those interested here’s an interesting set of articles regarding “preterism” and how it fails under biblical analysis.
http://www.according2prophecy.org/Preterism.html
Also interesting to note is the development of preterism in the 1500’s by a Jesuit by the name of Luis de Alcazar. Here’s some info on that:
http://www.cephasministry.com/preterism.html
And here’s some decent info on the basic differences between preterism, futurism, & historicism:
http://www.historicist.com/articles/historicism.htm
Ron
Hi Sean,
a few comments to your above post.
Indeed … the problem is that your interpretation and expectation is not what the Bible tells everyone to expect.
Do you realise that evil was present in paradise? or do you think that paradise was some kind of utopia where there was no evil? I read in Gen that evil (mentioned as “the serpent”) was apparently present in the garden from the start … there is no mention of it entering at some later tiime.
Also, please note that Isa 45:7 states that God did not only create good, but also created evil … thus it seems that evil would have been present on earth all along?
You mention scriptures from Dan 12 and Dan 7 above, which I deem to be very important passages giving us insight into when the end of the age and the resurrection would be … now, even though you refer to those passages you seem to actually reject what they do say as to the time when these things would be and what would happen.
In Dan 12, Daniel indeed speaks of the resurrection (verses 2-3), and speaks of the same which Jesus speaks of in Mat.13:43 that the righteous are resurrected,
“…shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, And those who
turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.”
Do you notice that Jesus in his words here speaks of this as what would happen at the “end of the age.” The angel speaking to Daniel speaks of it as the same thing when he calls it “the time of the end.” (vs.4)
Then (v. 6), one angel speaks to a second angel, and asks him,
“…How long shall the fulfillment of these wonders be?”
to which the second angel answers in v. 7:
“…that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time (3-1/2
years); and when the power of the holy people has been completely
shattered, all these things shall be finished.”
Now, does this not explains rather clearly when the resurrection would happen? When was the power of the holy people (Israel) shattered after 3,5 years of struggle? It seems to me that no other time would fit here for “the time when the power of the holy people was completely shattered.” other than the period from spring of 66 A.D. to autumn of 70 A.D. when Jerusalem, the temple, and the nation were sacked (in 3,5 years).
Then, please note, in v.9, the angel tells Daniel to seal up the vision,
“…for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”
As a further result of this, the angel tells him in vs.13, to,
“Go your way till the end; for you shall rest, and WILL ARISE to
your inheritance at the end of the days.”
Compare this with what Martha said in Jn.11:24. Martha said to Jesus
regarding her dead brother, Lazarus,
“I know that he will rise again in the resurrection AT THE LAST
DAY.”
The resurrection thus is placed at the last day, the end of that age in which Daniel, as well as Jesus and his apostles, lived. Considering this in context with other scriptures which speak of what happened at the end of the age,, one should be able to see that the time is not in our yet future, but rather was already in our past. How about Heb 8:26, which states about the time that letter was penned:
“… but now, once at THE END OF THE AGES, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself”(V.26)
Futhermore, it is added a few verses on (v. 37):
“For yet, A VERY LITTLE WHILE, and He WHO IS COMING, WILL COME, AND WILL NOT TARRY.”
Does the Bible tell everybody what AND WHEN to expect his coming? I would think so …. Does it agree with what you have stated as your expectation? I don’t think so …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
as regards the Messiah’s kingdom, a few thoughts which one ought to consider carefully, seeing that they place the beginning of Christ’s kingdom not in a yet undetermined future time, but in the 1st century AD
Peter, on the day of Pentecost, speaking to Jews from every nation on earth, declared that God had raised up (resurrected) Jesus from the dead
and that He was to sit on David’s throne (Acts 2:25-32). This kingdom was given to Jesus, when he ascended into Heaven and appeared before the Ancient of Days i.e., the Father, and that this kingdom would last forever
(Dan 7:13-14). When did the ascension happen?
Now, concerning Jesus coming back to earth to sit upon David’s literal throne in Jerusalem and reigning for 1,000 years etc. .. This is actually not possible, unless one violates Scriptures and declares Jeremiah to be a false prophet. In Jer.22:28-29, the prophet Jeremiah said this:
“Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol; a vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, and cast into a land which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, Hear the word of the Lord! Thus says the Lord; Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah.”
This prophecy was made shortly before the house of Judah was taken into Babylonian Captivity. The king referred to in these verses was Coniah (same as Jeconiah and Jehoiachin), he the last man who was rightful heir to the throne in Jerusalem. When Nebuchaddnezzar took Coniah
prisoner, he made Coniah’s younger brother Zedekiah his vassal king. Thus, Coniah was the last rightful king to reign before the 70 captivity. We should notice carefully that Jeremiah said to write this man Coniah down “as childless”. This was not to say that he didn’t have children, but this “childless” was in the sense that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne and reign in Judah ANYMORE.
Now this is very interesting because Jesus was of the lineage of Coniah (Mat.1:11-12). Therefore, if Jesus were to come back to Jerusalem (Judah) and reign in Jerusalem, as you propose, Jeremiah would turn out to be a false prophet and a liar. Since, most certainly, Jeremiah was not wrong, I would conclude that the idea of anyone reigning again on the literal throne of David from Jerusalem must be wrong.
In addition, in Ezek.37:12-28, the prophet also provides clear information about the kingdom. He is instructed by the LORD to take two sticks in his hands. One stick in one hand represented the “house of Judah” and one stick in the other hand represented the “house of Israel” (v. 16). The LORD told him in v.17 to “join them, one to the other, and they will become one in your hand.” HE continues then to demonstrate that the two houses, “the house of Judah” and the “house of Israel,” would become ONE nation again; that they would no longer be two nations divided into two kingdoms again. Then, in v. 23-24, the LORD declares,
“…Then they shall be my people and I will be their God. DAVID, MY SERVANT will be KING over them, and they shall all have one shepherd … my servant shall be their prince forever.”
Then notice carefully, exactly what He would do for them at that same time. We read,
“Morever, I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also
shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
The nations (Gentiles) also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel,
when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”
This very same identical promise of a new covenant with the “house of Judah” and the “house of Israel” is spoken also by the prophet Jeremiah as well. See Jer.31:31-34:
When we now take a look at the New Covenant Scriptures, we read what the writer of Hebrews had to say about this same thing. We can read in Heb.8:7ff:
“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: ‘Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the ‘house of Israel,’ and the ‘house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind, and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
Now, in that very passage, in v. 13, we read more about when that would happen. It says:
“In that He says, ‘A new covenant, He has made the first obsolete. Now what is BECOMING obsolete and GROWING OLD, is READY TO PASS AWAY.”
The following passages indicate when these things were to take place.
(a) we read about Christ, at the time this letter was penned: “but now,
once at THE END OF THE AGES, He has appeared to put away sin by the
sacrifice of Himself (v. 26)
(b) Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who EAGERLY WAIT FOR HIM, He will appear a second time, without sin, for salvation.”
(c) in v. 37, ” For yet, A VERY LITTLE WHILE, and He WHO IS COMING, WILL COME, AND WILL NOT TARRY.”
It seems to me that the Bible tells everyone clearly about the end of the ages, the last day, the kingdom, etc …. However, there are different interpretations given to various passages, from various angles and either taking different aspects into consideration or dismissing them.
Placing “the end of the age” into our future, makes the “end” of that age to already have been longer than the beginning and main part of it (old covenant made with Israel aprrox 1500 BC, Christ born in the end of the ages, which “end” would thus have lasted alreay almost 2000 years and would continue to last into a yet undetermined future … how can that be?
Who are we to contradict the writer of Hebrews who distinctly states that at the time the letter was written: “He Who is COMING will come and WILL NOT tarry” and to boldly claim that “he DID tarry and continues to do so”??
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Dear Ron S.,
a few comments on your post above where you wrote
You speak of “the complete picture of all of scripture”, do you realize that a “futurist” position of the parousia / end of the age / etc totally disregards all time related statements made in Scripture concerning these events?
You seem to ascribe “a resurrection of believers to immortality in heaven at death” to preterism, but do you realize that this is NOT what I have mentioned in my various posts here under this topic? Your main problem is that you are looking at things through a certain set of “theological glasses” (such as “eternal life will happen on earth”) which prohibits you to even see correctly a preterist position or preterist positions re this matter …
Do you go by “what the vast majority of biblical scholars firmly believe” as the determining facor for truth? IF so, I suppose you hold to a trinitarian position concerning God, Jesus Christ, holy spirit?
It may indeed be the vast majority of biblical scholars who do even now hold to the idea that the Book of Revelation was written in 95/96 AD … but a growing number of scholars are revising their position. And they do so NOT because they hold a preterist position on eschatological topics, but rather come to this conclusion based on detailed study of the inherent evidence as well as a more detailed study of the Early Church fathers’ writings where reference is made to the apostle John and the Book of Revelation.
By the way, ancient Aramaic manuscripts have a subheading at the start of the book which states that John saw these things while he was imprisoned by Ceasar Nero (!!) on the Isle of Patmos … which would definitely place the writing of the book prior to 70 AD.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Dear Ron S.,
you mention above the dating of the Book of Revelation, I’ve quickly done a “Google” search and found the following link with some extensive information:
http://ecclesia.org/truth/revelation.html
Any thoughts on the information presented in this article concerning the dating of the writing of the Book of Revelation?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
One thing to add.. parousia is a common word in the NT. It is used of general coming and going of Peter and Paul. We might to do well to retire it’s use as a “technical” word with only one connotation. This is not to suggest that Jesus will have multiple “second-coming” events. But just something to keep in mind.
Maybe I’m missing something, but where does it say that David’s throne is in heaven? This interpretation just doesn’t work. May I recommend a good book that will perhaps clear up many of these issues you raise regarding the kingdom? Until: The Coming of Messiah and his Kingdom by Robert Shank thoroughly lays out the various objections you have raised and answers that the throne of David question quite extensively on pages 30 & 31. These three points emerge: (1) David’s throne was in Jerusalem. (2) Jesus is now in heaven sharing the Father’s throne in Rev 3:21. (3) Jesus will come again to sit on the throne of David in Jerusalem.
This is a clever argument but it proves too much. Jesus is promised to sit on the throne of David by the angel Gabriel in Luke 1.31-33. Thus if your argument is valid then you are pitting Jeremiah vs. Gabriel (my money is on the angel). There are multiple solutions to this dilemma. One is to say that Matthew’s genealogy traces through Joseph of which Jesus did not biologically descend by virtue of his virginal conception. Meanwhile, Luke’s genealogy traces through Mary (but notice that Jeconiah is not in this genealogy). Another solution to the situation can be found by reading this article.
Regarding your Hebrews argument I would just disagree that the age you are referring to is the same as the age spoken of elsewhere when it says “the age to come” etc. Hebrews is focused on Jesus’ high priestly superiority and role. The language is focused on explaining how we are no longer under the old covenant (that of Moses) and instead are under the new covenant (that of Jesus). This is not referring to the making obsolete of the Abrahamic Covenant (to inherit the land, which apparently Jesus still anticipated in the future, Mat 5.5) and the Davidic covenant (which Gabriel still saw as unfulfilled in Luke 1.31-33). The covenant that ended was the Law. This is why we are allowed to eat shrimp, rest on Monday instead of Saturday, and so on. However, this age of the new covenant (is that language ever used?) is not to be confused with the present evil age of Gal 4.4. When the writer of Hebrews speaks of the end of the ages he is not saying that the kingdom has come. Besides, according to your theory the kingdom had not yet come until a.d. 70.
I don’t place the end of the ages expression of Hebrews in our future. He is talking about the old covenant vs. new covenant. Not the kingdoms of this world vs. the kingdom of God. These subjects are distinct. In response to the 2000 years argument, I simply refer you to 2 Peter 3.
This is a common way of looking at the eschaton throughout all of the Bible. All the prophets saw the day of the LORD as on the horizon about to break in at any time. Perhaps God did not give us the actual date so that each generation would be motivated by the notion that the end may come in his own lifetime.
I would like to raise some problems with the preterist position.
1. Preterism teaches that Jesus has already come. However, we have (to my knowledge) absolutely no eye-witness testimony of this fact! There is not one apostolic, sub-apostolic, or ante-nicene writer that talks about the second coming of Jesus as a past tense event! So Jesus came back but the world wasn’t change. Every eye did not see him or perhaps they were all killed and could not report what happened. But of course, we do know that Titus was there in a.d. 70 and that after Vespasian was called back to Rome to become emperror, he was successful in destroying the city. Even so, this destruction wasn’t even the worst. In a.d. 135 the Jews were completely expelled and a new city modeled after the pagan style was built on top of Jerusalem. In summary, the parousia to a preterist is a non-event. It posits that Jesus did not come like was promised in Acts 1.11. He came but nobody noticed. That is certainly not the way the texts I cited in comment #9 make this grand event sound.
2. Preterism teaches that the resurrection occurred when Jesus returned in a.d. 70. Again, where is the evidence for this assertion? Where is the document that says that the people arose from the dead like the valley of dry bones in Eze 37? Where are these resurrected saints? They should be ruling with Christ over the nations (Rev 2.26-28)! Again, the resurrection is reduced to a non-event, easily missed if one doesn’t adopt the preterist hermeneutic.
3. Preterism teaches that the kingdom of God came in a.d. 70. This means that the Messiah is ruling the world right now from Jerusalem (Ps 2.6-8; Psalm 110; Is 9.7). The nations have beat their swords into plowshares (Is 2.2-4) and they no longer study war. The kingdom of God means that God rules the world rather than Satan and the people who knowingly or unknowingly partner with his unjust system of domination and oppression. Furthermore death is defeated. Obviously the kingdom of God has not yet come. If the kingdom of God came in a.d. 70 then you are left with only two possibilities. (1) The kingdom of God is another non-event. That is to say, the kingdom came to earth and God began ruling (Rev 11.15-17) but the world didn’t take notice. (2) The kingdom of God came God began ruling but apparently was defeated by Satan shortly thereafter because the history over the last 2,000 years has been smeared with the blood of innocents and godly. In other words, if God is ruling the world today he is not doing a good job. Are we prepared to say that God is inept? He can’t fulfill his promises of restoring creation, defeating evil, ending death (Is 25.6-9)? I certainly don’t think so. The kingdom is still to come. And when it comes no one will miss it. It will glorious and horrible. Glorious for those who have switched their allegiance from Satan to Christ and horrible for those who persisted in their own depravity.
Hi Sean,
you mentioned
which brings up a few questions:
If Peter’s words concerning Jesus’ parousia were meant to be understood as explanation that Jesus’ parousia was not to come to pass until at least a few “days” (”a few thousand years”) later, then just what did these 1st century mockers have to mock about? Why would God have Peter warn the 1st century disciples that the mockers were about to be a threat to their faith? Doesn’t the passage show, without a doubt, that the word being preached concerning the Lord’s parousia was understood by both the disciples and by the mockers (!) that it was to be a 1st century event? Were’nt the mockers at the time of the writing of 2Pe getting so bold because that generation was now coming to a close? These mockers had not been around soon after Pentecost or even in the early 50ies AD during Paul’s journeys … they are showing up on the scene in the mid 60ies with their mockery … why then and not all along?
It seems to me that we must understand the Scriptures first and foremost in light of to whom they were originally addressed … if we dismiss that point and read them as if they were addressed to someone thousands of years later and applicable in the same manner throughout history and all time, one will most definitely have an incorrect understanding.
If we take 2 Pe out of its historical context, the passage becomes actually meanignless … doesn’t it?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
you also mentioned above
If that were true, I suppose we can safely conclude that the parousia can NEVER happen because God will have to keep up this “fear motivation” technique up for every generation ?
Have you ever read the passage in Proverbs about the effect that “hope deferred” has on people? IF God provided knowledge intended for us to believe that the parousia could be in our lifetime and then would not keep up His promise …it seems He would not quite be a “true” God?
He would be like many earthly fathers trying that technique on their kids when they do not want to do something and want to “coach” their kids into giving up asking and believing that a certain thing will happen (”we’ll do it later”, “I told you, we’ll do it later”, “did you not hear me, I already told you, we’ll do it later” …. until it’s too late and we can’t do it anyways)
Do you really think God is and acts that way? I doubt it!
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
concerning your comment above
Perhaps this will help …
The prophet Daniel saw in his vision how the Messiah was receiving his kingdom/rule when he ascended up to the Ancient of Days (cp Dan 7:13-14). Now in Acts 2, Peter mentions on the day of Pentecost, that Christ was now seated at the right hand of God (that is, he apparently had ascended to God, received his kingdom, and had taken his seat on his throne which is at the right hand of God. In other places, Messiah is spoken of as sitting on David’s throne.
When we realize how the physical earthly foreshadows find their fulfillment in the spiritual heavenly reality, we can understand how Christ is already now “sitting on David’s throne”, that is, he is now reigning in fulfillment of what David’s earthly rule was a foreshadow
Cheers,
Wolfgang
I haven’t seen any evidence that Jesus is sitting on David’s throne. Rev 3.21 says that Jesus is sitting on the Father’s throne with him. This is not David’s throne. David’s throne was in Jerusalem. If you say that Jesus is now on David’s throne then I need you to document that Jesus is now in Jerusalem. But that is not what you are saying. You are saying David’s throne is in heaven. But this contradicts the historical account of David actually ruling. David never went to heaven. Peter is clear on this point in Acts 2.34 (for David did not ascend to heaven). If David never ascended to heaven then he never ruled from heaven therefore Jesus is not ruling from David’s throne. I have not seen one verse that indicates that Jesus is already ruling on David’s throne. Peter’s mention on Pentecost is the promise that it would one day be fulfilled. He sees the resurrection in light of this as proving that Jesus is in fact the one destined to rule on the throne of David. Peter never says that Jesus is actually doing that yet. This is because Jesus must stay in heaven until the time of restoration of all things when he comes back to establish the kingdom of God on earth (Acts 3.21).
Is “second coming” a traditional Christian term that is misplaced?
I would like to know where the term “second coming” originated and if there is any significance to a “second” coming. The purpose of my asking is because I believe the scripture clearly shows Jesus has been physically present on the Earth twice already and propose that his next “coming” will actually be his third. Is there some deep theological impact to my question? I doubt it. But, much like a debate on how many were crucified alongside Jesus or what day he was raised from the dead, I believe holding to the accuracy of the scripture is important.
1. I would call Jesus’ birth his “first coming”.
Luke 2:7-11
7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. 8And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. 10And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. 11For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
I propose the “second coming” occurred after his resurrection.
John 20:11-17
11But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, 12And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. 13And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. 14And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. 15Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. 16Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. 17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. 18Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto her.
Notice that Jesus instructed Mary not to touch him because he had not yet ascended. But, when he appeared with Thomas in the room, he asked Thomas to touch him as proof of who he truly was.
John 20: 26-27
26And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
So, Jesus has obviously (to me) ascended, presented himself to God and physically returned. This would be his “second coming” would it not? His next return then would be the “third coming”.
In Hebrews 9:28 it does say “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second (deuterous) time without sin unto salvation. ”
deuteros (dyoo’-ter-os) (ordinal) second (in time, place, or rank; also adverb):–afterward, again, second(-arily, time).
Now, I’m not trying to be nit picky. I just thought it was interesting and wanted to pose the question.
Thoughts?
The force of Jesus’ instruction to Mary is not to “not touch him because he is too holy or pure, since he’s just been resurrected”. That is not what the Greek indicates. Modern translations get it right when they translate “don’t cling to me”. Jesus knows he is leaving. He already taught the disciples how to go on after he leaves. This is what he is referencing: “Mary don’t cling to me, I’m leaving remember”.
And that single conclusion destroys all the other points, since you’re inferring that Jesus went and came back since Thomas was “allowed” to touch him. This is the legalistic approach to the Scripture we must remedy.
Not trying to be legalistic, John. I was asking if Jesus left and came back. That’s all.
I read something and was curious what others thought. Thank you for pointing out the meaning of ‘touch’. I read other translations and went to Strongs and you are correct.
680 haptomai hap’-tom-ahee reflexive of 681; properly, to attach oneself to, i.e. to touch (in many implied relations):–touch.
Now, given that additional information, I understand the passage better. There is no need to think I was inferring anything else.
Sorry about my over-reaction. It is just that using the Scriptures in that manner of picking out individual phrases and sentences against the overarching narrative and context in that time period really bothers me. More than likely because that is the environment I grew up in, and now have learnt better of it. It is just not how the authors intended their work to be used. And I want to respect them.
No worries, John.
Thanks again.