Return of the Jesus
Many of the authors of the Hebrew Bible would speak longingly for the day when God would finally establish an eternal earthly kingdom. Others would speak as if God’s kingdom were always firmly in place, even as most of what was left of Israel sat in exile. This latter view was of course a spiritual view of God’s kingdom. The book of Daniel is an excellent example of this, as it is all about how God was exercising control over present kings, those under whom God placed Daniel, and all future kingdoms after Daniel until the Messiah was to come to establish what, according to some prophets, would finally be God’s earthly, visible rule established at Jerusalem.
The New Testament writers certainly carried on these traditions, which we must bear in mind if we are to understand them. Matthew 25:34 says that God’s kingdom was prepared from the beginning, while John 14:2, 3 has Jesus stating that he is going to prepare a kingdom, in the future. Moderns view such statements as a contradiction, but it is no more contradiction than the mystery of God’s kingdom that had been preached for centuries before Jesus. A similar statement is made about Jesus being prince of the world already, whereas in other places we see that the prince of this world, Satan, must be cast out.[1] We could also ask when did Jesus give his disciples the Spirit, before he ascended, or after?[2]
But perhaps the best question to ask is when Jesus would establish his reign, regardless of what sort of transition it was supposed to be. Because most New Testament writers appear to assume some sort of future transition; in fact, it appears to be one of the most important messages of the New Testament. And it is here that we find some curious questions raised by the varying testimonies. These passages are only a sampling to get an idea of the various things that the authors believed about it: the coming of the “end of the age” is far too extensive a study to do it justice in this short section.
As we’ve already noted, Jesus and several of the New Testament writers bring us apocalyptic messages, explaining what will happen at the end of the age, and what sort of kingdom the Messiah was to usher in to finally bring God’s kingdom into the world. One of the most interesting details early in the gospel narrative of Luke 4 is when Jesus reads from the scroll of Isaiah, chapter 61:
“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
Because he has anointed me
To proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set the oppressed free,
To proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
Jesus then makes the radical claim that this has been fulfilled before them. Theologians have not failed to notice that Jesus stopped short of the very next line, which had decidedly not been fulfilled that day, “the day of vengeance/repayment of our God.” Of course, Jesus’ message did include the coming of destruction on all who did not repent, but this fulfillment, though near at hand, was still in the future, when Jesus would return to wreak vengeance on his enemies, elaborated on particularly in Revelation. In other words, destruction was in fact proclaimed right along with freedom to the captives by Jesus’ disciples, both of which arguably were delayed. Jesus, or Luke, may not have wanted to give the full quote because he was merely focusing on the positive side of the gospel at that point. But it should not be lost on us that the gospel was always a combination of both the good and the bad news.
Right before Jesus is crucified, all three synoptic gospels give us one of Jesus’ ostensibly most important messages on this topic of his second coming. Scholars often call this speech the “Little Apocalypse”, or the Olivet Discourse, because it was delivered on the Mount of Olives. It is found in Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, and Luke 21. There are, as usual, differences between these accounts, but I just want to focus on a few details about them, then move on the rest of the New Testament’s view on the topic.
Leading up to Jesus’ Little Apocalypse speech, the disciples are speaking with Jesus about the magnificent buildings of Herod’s Temple before them. He then tells them that the Temple will be completely destroyed. They ask him when this and the “end of the age” and his “coming” will happen. Recall that the gospels were possibly written in a time long after Jesus had stopped being seen by the living, and no visible earthly reign was yet set up, but Mark was probably written within the lifetime of at least a few who were alive when Jesus was. So the Little Apocalypse is at least a partial explanation of why the Messiah is not yet ruling from Jerusalem.
Jesus confirms that there will indeed be a delay, and that his followers will first be persecuted, tortured, and even executed. But they should not be alarmed, as God is still in control, even if appearances are otherwise. There are a few key things that Jesus says will happen before “the end of the age”, some of which will be picked up on by other New Testament books. One was that they would experience tribulation; and the gospel had to go into all the world first. And as previously noted, Jesus speaks of an abomination of desolation that must first happen in the Temple, which almost certainly refers to its destruction in AD 70, even if we do not have historical confirmation of anything similar to what Antiochus IV did in the 2nd century BCE, when one report states that a pig was sacrificed. However, for the 70 CE destruction of the Temple, we do have reports that the Roman victory parade did involve the carrying of the fixtures of the Temple by Gentiles, which would have been a fairly abominable desecration of them. Not to mention that they burned the Temple.[3]
Jesus warns his followers to flee Judea when they see that abomination, and/or Jerusalem surrounded by armies. There would be tribulation, but God would limit it. These are the last of the signs, after which Jesus said he would return in the clouds to gather his elect. Apparently, this “time of the Gentiles” would be somewhat of a lag between the destruction of Jerusalem and his coming on the clouds (otherwise they wouldn’t need to flee), which goes unexplained.
Jesus reiterates the imminence of his return in the clouds by confirming that all of that generation would not all be dead before it happened. I’ve heard modern preachers, who have never heard that Jesus came back in the clouds in the first century, explain this passage by saying that Jesus was answering two different questions that the disciples had asked earlier. In other words, the destruction of the Temple was imminent, not his return in the clouds and the end of the age, which is mentioned in Matthew 24. But the idea that Jesus is answering two separate questions is not made plain by the writer at all. In fact, the disciples do not appear to be asking about different events, especially in the wording of Mark 13 and Luke 21. They always thought that the Messiah would usher in all these changes!
Jesus’ imminent return is mentioned several more times outside of the gospels. Paul, who wrote before the Temple was destroyed, speaks of it often. And yet he never ties it to the destruction of the Temple, a prophecy that scholars typically claim that he evinces no knowledge of in all his writings.[4] Apart from the Olivet Discourse, let’s compare the other New Testament writings on the timing, signs, and nature of Jesus’ “second” coming, which is the Parousia in Greek, the term typically used by Bible scholars. And as we go through these, recall that I am not trying to approach this theologically. Some theologians might disagree that these refer to the same events. Maybe so. I am mainly concerned with comparing what the writers taught about the coming again(s) of Jesus. The reader can puzzle out if they are separate events or not. I encourage the reader to try to see the viewpoint of each book individually, just as they were written. This is worthwhile, even if you have faith that harmonization across books is appropriate.
We should also add some more terminology, too. For scholars, the study of the end times is called eschatology, from the Greek word for last or furthest, eschaton.
Timing and Signs of the Parousia
Thy Kingdom Come
First, let’s note several passages that seem to teach that Jesus’ coming is imminent, in addition to the Olivet Discourse. When Jesus sends out the twelve apostles into the “towns of Israel” to proclaim the imminence of the kingdom and of judgment on Israel in Matthew 10, he tells them that they will not have gone through all the towns before the “Son of Man comes.” Some scholars have called into question whether Jesus was actually referring to himself as the “Son of Man” when he speaks of this cosmic judgment,[5] but for the sake of the theologians, let’s assume for the moment that he was speaking of himself. Jesus reiterates Israel’s coming judgment in chapter 23, which Matthew places right before the Olivet Discourse, saying that “all things will come upon this generation”. The judgment is therefore imminent, just as the apocalyptic prophets Jesus and John the Baptist had taught.
Luke is an interesting case. We’ve already noted that it was probably written after Mark. Some scholars have speculated that Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple could have actually been historical, and Mark’s prediction of it could have actually been written not long before it happened.[6] For any skeptics, Jewish rebellion and Rome’s attempts to put them down was at least four years in coming by the time the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, so proclaiming judgment was coming during that time would have at the very least been an excellent guess, maybe even three and a half decades earlier, when Jesus, other messiahs, and the zealots were causing so much trouble for the Romans.[7] Back to Luke though: Luke’s Olivet Discourse adds the sign of armies surrounding Jerusalem to Mark’s account; some scholars therefore argue that Luke was therefore written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. Scholars have also, therefore, seen some explanation in Luke for Christ’s delay in coming, as in the parable of the nobleman who left for a while and then returned to settle things.[8] In fact, Luke explicitly introduces the story with the statement “because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.” But even Luke still taught that that generation would not all pass away until “all things” had taken place. And Luke, like Daniel, taught that it would happen to “all who live on the face of the earth.”[9]
John makes an interesting comment in the conclusion. Chapter 21 tells us that Jesus makes a comment about the disciple whom Jesus loved, which many believe was implied in the book to be the apostle John; I will work from that assumption here, as I deal with John’s probably implied claim to authorship elsewhere. After Jesus shows what sort of death Peter will die, Peter turns to John and asks “what about this man.” Jesus responds “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?” Some who heard it thought that Jesus meant that John would not die, but our author corrects this as a misunderstanding by repeating what Jesus said. I’ve added the emphasis, as there was no italics in written Greek at the time, but I believe our author meant that exact emphasis. In other words, Jesus was speaking of John surviving until Jesus’ next coming. If this analysis is correct, then the gospel of John likewise follows the other gospels and assumes that Jesus will return before every one of that generation died. This teaching also flies in the face of modern scholarship’s almost universal rejection of Papias’ (c. 60-130 CE) testimony that the apostle John actually wrote the gospel that bears his name. In other words, if John was written pseudonymously after John had died, why would the book contain a prophecy that was supposed to be fulfilled before John died? That would be an expired prophecy. Based on my readings, modern scholars seldom seriously address the evidence for the validity of Papias’ testimony for apostolic authorship, a topic which I may review further in a later book.[10] Also note that the incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ words, that John would not die, may suggest the author is addressing a concern people had with Jesus’ apparent delay in coming. We’ll see even more of this in other New Testament books below. I’d also like to admit that what John is saying in this passage is not at all explicit, and my theory about its interpretation could be entirely wrong. And more broadly, very little about Jesus’ second coming is explicit in the entire New Testament, which is one reason why there’s so much debate about it, and why this section on it comes to very few conclusions.
Paul also believed in something major coming soon. Philippians 4:5 says that the Lord “is at hand.” In Romans 8, Paul did not think that the sufferings of his time were comparable to the glory which was to be revealed. One possible translation is “about” to be revealed. In chapter 16, he tells the Romans that Satan will soon be crushed under their feet. In the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul tells them that the time has grown short in chapter seven, the time of the impending crisis/distress that is about to be upon them; although Paul does not mention Jesus’ prophecy of the impending destruction of the Temple, this preaching regarding the coming destress does in fact parallel the Olivet Discourse, something which most scholars do not mention when they say that Paul evinces no knowledge of Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the Temple. He also says that the present form of this world/cosmos is passing away. Similar to Jesus in Matthew 25, Paul exhorts his listeners in 1 Thessalonians to be ready for Jesus’ second coming; they were concerned about those who had died, that they would miss out on that coming, but Paul comforts them by explaining that the dead would be raised and meet Jesus in the clouds before the living. Note also that this is an established church, and they do not even know what happens after death yet.
The book of James is believed by many scholars to be pseudonymous and written late, partly because it appears to be combatting a form of Paulinism.[11] However, there is at least a minority of scholars who entertain a possible early date, and even that James is one of the few primary sources of the New Testament.[12] And potentially one of the best evidences of this is James’ stance on the Parousia, which is said to be “near”. Indeed, the judge is at the doors![13]
Probably the most prolific source on the topic of the Parousia is Revelation, and it is quite adamant that it is coming soon.[14]
So far we’ve seen passages that suggest that Jesus’ second coming is imminent. But not all passages that speak of Jesus’ return speak of imminence, as we’ll see next. Most scholars see this as evidence that these books were written much later, and at least partially to explain why that coming was delayed. The reader can decide; I will just cite them. But I will suggest that an author’s view of the imminence of the Parousia is probably not the best indicator for how long he wrote after Christ. Revelation in particular is believed to have been written quite late, yet it still contends, like Jesus in the gospels, that that generation would not pass away before it happened. And two millennia passing does not stop many Christian preachers still today from declaring that Jesus is coming soon, quite literally. People like to believe that something is special about their own time and generation. However, a recognition of delay and of that generation passing away does in fact seem to suggest a later timeframe for at least some books of the New Testament.
Though Thy Kingdom Delay…
Ephesians is believed by most modern scholars to be pseudonymous and written long after Paul died,[15] and this is based on writing style, but also at least partly on its message. I’m not going to get into that here, except as it regards our topic at hand. Ephesians chapter one evinces no imminence regarding the return of Christ or the “new age”, only an expectation that it will happen. In fact, it sees Jesus as already reigning in Heaven. Is this a softening of the Parousia, suggesting that it’s not a big deal that Jesus hasn’t come back yet because he is in fact reigning in Heaven?[16] It didn’t appear to be for Revelation, which speaks of Christ as already reigning, yet for that author the Parousia was a huge deal. Perhaps a better question is how Ephesians envisions Christians already in Heaven if the resurrection has not yet taken place. This appears to be a different view of the event than in, say, 1 Thessalonians 4, where the living and the dead rise to meet Jesus in the clouds to finally be with him. Many theologians today sort of harmonize such passages by various theories, one being that there is a waiting place called “Paradise” where the souls of the faithful wait for the Parousia, since Jesus told one of the criminals on the cross with him that “today” he would be with him in paradise, at least in the Luke 23 account. Some Christians similarly believe souls wait in a realm referred to as Hades in the New Testament,[17] where souls await a final judgment at some future return of Jesus. Many Christians, on the other hand, reject the idea that Christians have to wait somewhere when they die; instead they believe that Christians go directly to Heaven; of course they have their prooftexts for this belief, and I am not taking sides, but I would like to point out that the New Testament makes neither explicit statements regarding whether there is a waiting place for you when you die, nor whether faithful believers even go to Heaven when they die, ever. I’m not saying that some of the biblical authors didn’t believe one or the other of these, only that they say remarkably little on the subject of what happens when you die, and even less that’s explicit; Jesus, for instance, taught more explicitly on what happens to the unfaithful after death.[18]
Second Timothy is also believed by most (secular) scholars to be pseudonymous and written a good while after Paul died. Again, I am not taking sides on this here, but will only point out that when speaking of the second coming, there is no imminence about it, only an explanation of its delay. Signs are given that must happen first before that coming, in the 3rd chapter; but instead of the distressing times having to do with Gentile armies, as in the Olivet Discourse of the gospels, the author speaks of the distressing coming from apostates. Titus 2 is a similar case, also believed by most scholars to be written long after Paul’s death.
But perhaps the most interesting explanation for the apparent delay of the Parousia—in light of the first generation of Christians passing away without it happening—is found in 2 Peter 3. People were asking “where is the promise of his coming?” because they recognized that it was delayed, something which our author also does not dispute. Again, he says nothing about the imminence of Christ’s return. And what he does say is perhaps even more telling, when people question whether Jesus is coming back. He adapts Psalm 90:4, saying that for God a thousand years are like a single day! And indeed, what they were waiting for, at least a visible—perhaps even an earthly—manifestation of it, is still being awaited over two millennia later.
People of faith may be frustrated with me at this point, wanting me to provide their particular explanation of how all these passages can be harmonized. But my purpose, once again, is to merely explain what the writers revealed explicitly. If it is very difficult to figure out, then it is either bald contradiction or a mystery, whether intended so by the authors or not. And if it is a mystery, then it fits right along with the many other mysteries that are the foundational doctrines of Christianity. Of course outsiders will call them gross and blatant contradictions, but I would like to remind the reader that the New Testament writers were quite aware that even their good news itself was foolishness to the world. They were not stupid, nor were they officials in a vast institution of power (which would only later develop) trying to create a narrative to solidify their power; they were in fact brilliant writers of a collection of literature that is such a powerful story that it has shaped our entire world, so why not investigate the depth of what they said, rather than just dismissing it as mere lies?
I’d also like to remind theologians and believers of one more thing. They, as moderns and products of Western thought, have a tendency to want to explain every question that arises, using all sorts of theological interpretations of passages spread all across the Bible. That’s all well and good, and probably has its place, at least sometimes. But I would think they’d be very careful when professing such conclusions that the original writers never said, much less gave complete explanation for.
Before moving on the nature of the Parousia, we should make one more note about timing. For the Hebrew Bible, the Messiah would come and accomplish his mission. There was no mention of delay after he came, even in the most apocalyptic works, such as Daniel. For the New Testament writers, we get vastly different viewpoints. Although there are a few statements that follow the Hebrew Bible, possibly suggesting that the end of the age was when Jesus came,[19] the majority view is in fact a shift in what the Hebrew Bible said—that there would in fact be sort of a waiting period in between the Messiah’s coming and the final establishment of the kingdom, and all the other things that went along with that. Jesus came and accomplished the sacrifice that would take away sin; he would then ascend into Heaven, there’d be more delay, and then the Temple would be destroyed and Jesus’ followers would be persecuted, but even then the end was “not yet”.[20] But it was still coming soon!
Just this idea that there would be a “sandwiched” period in between the coming of the Messiah and, well, the final coming of the Messiah, is radical enough. And as I said, it seems to be the predominant view among the New Testament writers, understandably enough; after all, Jesus was executed then disappeared from the Earth with all things continuing as they did from creation, nor were his followers yet ruling the nations as promised.[21] He had not saved his elect from their bondage or led them out of exile, nor made his enemies his footstool, nor restored Jerusalem as the seat of God’s throne.[22] But there is an interesting minority view in the New Testament that, though it recognizes a present age that will give way to a future age, views Jesus as already ruling over the world, seated on his throne with full dominion and power over all authorities.[23] Revelation sort of seems to bridge these seemingly contradictory views by saying that, yes, Jesus rules already, but God’s elect are not yet ruling the world, which will happen at his (second) coming, and the kingdom of the earth will finally be brought into the kingdom of Christ.[24]
Perhaps one of the most interesting perspectives on the “sandwich” period between the coming of Messiah and…the coming of Messiah—is the way it is spoken of as a process, as if this great shift is already occurring during their lives. Paul says that the present form of this world is passing away.[25] And as for the judgment on the world, but especially on the Jewish rulers who rejected God’s plan for themselves because they failed to recognize the time of their visitation (Luke 19:44), Paul tells us that they were not only doomed to pass away, but also that they “are being destroyed”, as if the events to accomplish this are already rolling.[26]
So far we’ve largely considered questions of timing of the Parousia. The next article will examine what is perhaps the most important question, given all the varying testimonies about it: what was the nature of Jesus’ second coming? To read even more Passover Eggs, check out my book here.
[1] Compare Revelation 1:5 and John 12:31.
[2] Compare John 20:22 and 16:7.
[3] Josephus reports that the Jews were actually responsible for the blaze, but he often pandered to the Romans in his writings. Regardless of who did it, the Bible portrays both the Romans and the Jews as the enemy of God’s kingdom, and more often the latter! Some New Testament writers would have no problem portraying Jews and even those who taught a different form of Christianity as anti-Christs. And regarding the original abomination of desolation in the 2nd century BCE, there were also plenty of Jews then allied with their oppressors. So much so that when Antiochus IV first cracked down on their religious freedom, one of the major reasons was that they were practically engaged in civil war among themselves, and Antiochus was trying to secure a buffer zone between his northern empire and Egypt, which had recently fallen under the sway of Rome. His actions were more of a fairly desperate power play than a temper tantrum, as most historians unfortunately portray it. This is yet one more example of scholars perhaps being influenced by theologians, who rely on the most detailed account we have of the event, the highly one-sided report of 1 Maccabees.
[4] E.g., see Paula Fredriksen’s From Jesus to Christ, 2nd ed., ch. 6. See below for two actual examples from Paul’s writing that speak of the destruction of the Jews, at least.
[5] E.g., Bart Ehrman, The New Testament, 4th edition, ch. 6. I have found other scholars to oppose this view, such as Paula Fredrikson.
[6] See The New Testament History and Literature, by Dale Martin. For the opposing view, see most secular scholars. But to cite one example, From Jesus to Christ, by Paul Fredriksen is a fairly accessible read.
[7] Josephus traces the war’s origins back to events six decades before, suggesting any predictions of impending destruction from the crucifixion onward would have potentially very well informed indeed. See When Christians Were Jews, by Paula Fredriksen, ch. 1.
[8] 19:11-27
[9] 21:29-35
[10] See Richard Baukham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.
[11] I.e., a focus on faith saving to the exclusion of works, Introduction to the New Testament, by W.G. Kümmel, p. 291.
[12] James the Brother of Jesus, by Robert Eisenman, chapter 1.
[13] 5:7-9
[14] E.g., see 1:3-7, 3:10, 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20.
[15] E.g., see Bart Ehrman’s Forged, which is an accessible read. But for more detail, you’ll have to wade through his Forgery and Counterforgery, which is written for scholars.
[16] Interestingly, there is an opposing premillennial view that Jesus failed to set up his kingdom because the Jews rejected him, so the Parousia, still in the future, is when he will set it up.
[17] Based on passages like Philippians 2:8-11, Revelation 5:13, 20:14, and even Luke 16:19-31.
[18] Another way moderns harmonize such a differing array of teachings regarding what happens to believers when they die is particularly interesting. This view is that there is neither time nor space outside of the created cosmos, so to ask when something happens after death is a non sequitur. In other words, there is no contradiction in passages that show believers in the presence of God immediately when they die, and others that suggest it happens at the end of the age, or even when the entire cosmos is consumed in fire, as in 1 Thessalonians: because “outside” of this cosmos, there is neither before nor after, sooner or later, but simply timeless existence, which of course is hard for us time-bound mortals to grasp. I know many theologians that would argue that this is yet one more example of Platonic views (i.e., a non-physical existence) being imposed on the text and the biblical authors; in fact, the majority of the theologians I’ve encountered would probably argue for an afterlife that is made of some sort of space-time, even if it is different than our own. Unfortunately, that is a topic for another section, and not in this book.
[19] 1 Peter 1:20
[20] Matthew 24:6
[21] 2 Peter 3:4; Revelation 21:2, 11:15
[22] 1 Peter 1:1, 17; 2:11; Hebrews 10:13
[23] Ephesians 1:20-23
[24] 1:5, cf. 5:10, 11:15, 17, cf. Daniel 7.
[25] 1 Corinthians 7:25-31.
[26] 1 Corinthians 2:6-8. A similar comment is made is 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, which states that God’s wrath had come at last on the Jews who killed Jesus. Paula Fredericksen has argued that this passage must be an interpolation, as it is harsher toward the Jews than the rest of his writing. (See From Jesus to Christ, 2nd ed., ch. 6, p.122) However, right in the middle of the rest of her argument, she cites 1 Corinthians 2:8 as an indisputably Pauline statement, but argues that it probably refers to heavenly rulers, but if it refers to earthly ones, it must therefore be the Romans, since they were the ones who killed Jesus. Oh, the modern mind. Such statements betray a total ignoring of 1) the apocalyptic view of the connection between heavenly and earthly rulers, 2) the blaming of the Jews consistently throughout the New Testament for being those who killed Jesus, even if they had the Romans do it, 3) the use of “age” as an apocalyptic term, for which, yes, the Jews were still the rulers until the time of the appointed end, and 4) the fact that 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is consistent with 1 Corinthians 2:8, which would make it harder to argue that it is an interpolation.