Nature of the Parousia
One of the things believers probably wish I would have distinguished in the previous article was the nature(s) of the Parousia. For instance, one of the ways that some modern Christians harmonize such passages is by believing that Jesus’ judgment on the earthly nation of Israel—i.e., the destruction of the physical Temple in 70 CE—was a different event from the great white throne judgment of Revelation 20. Another similar explanation, which I’ve already mentioned, is the theory that Jesus was answering two questions in his Olivet Discourse, one being about the end of the age, which some call “the Mosaic”, and the other about the end of the entire cosmos, after the “Christian age”. (More on these “ages” in the following sections where we consider what did or didn’t happen to the Mosaic law.)
So now I would like to compare several passages which give us clues regarding the nature of the Parousia. Again, I will not be digging deep for theological conclusions, but mainly examining what the text says in its plainest meaning, which I figure is the best starting point before searching for mysteries. I just hope that this analysis gives especially believers a better handle on what the authors actually say on the topic; I would ask, in order for this to be effective, that the reader at least temporarily try to ignore whatever preconceived framework they’ve already been taught to try to explain all of these passages. Most church-goers have been fed some paradigm for how to understand the New Testament’s myriad teachings on the subject, whether it leans toward pre-millennialism, amillennialism, realized eschatology, or some other system of doctrine, or various combinations of several such paradigms. Most of these are mutually exclusive, contradicting the others at every turn. In other words, it is almost certain, just from merely a logical standpoint, that most of them are very wrong. In the words of Dale Martin about biblical commentaries in general in his online Yale course of the New Testament, most of what is written about the Bible is nonsense.[1]
And if at the end of this analysis the reader can find some sort of theological framework into which all these passages fit, great. But I would like to reiterate my warning: we probably have no business trying to explain everything that the authors did not. And if the reader finds that there really is evidence that certain books of the New Testament actually are pseudonymous, well then maybe Bible studies can finally begin to have real and maybe even productive discussion not just about what the documents of the Bible say, but how people of faith even know what belongs in the Bible. I was sitting in a Bible class the other day about the first letter of John; in the introduction we established that we are not sure who wrote it, mainly because we’re not really told, and one lady, full of faith, piped up and said, “but we know it was inspired by the Holy Spirit!” I thought that the next logical question to further the study was to ask how we know that, but I let the teacher continue with his lesson.
The Awaited Messiahs?
I should begin this section by pointing out that the Hebrew Bible authors only ever speak of one coming of God’s anointed,[2] even though they give us different portraits of what he would do. There is some cryptic language in Daniel of messianic events regarding certain periods, even after the restoration of Temple worship, beginning especially in chapter 9 and following. I’ve already discussed 9:24-27 in chapter 6 above, but I’d like to add that many millennialists today believe that the last week of the “70 sevens” was “paused”, remaining unfulfilled till even today.[3] And the main reason is that they recognize that Daniel’s timeline would have otherwise ended even before Jesus came. Most scholars interpret him as expecting the “prince” (the angel Michael, not the Davidic messiah this time) to come shortly after a time of tribulation around 164 BCE,[4] when the apocalyptic end will occur, he’ll defeat the cosmic evil forces, and the faithful dead are raised to everlasting life.[5] Notice also that much of Daniel’s language and expectations and terminology are followed closely by many of the New Testament writers, even if their timeline is longer, and Jesus is the one who accomplishes it. Daniel does in fact speak of events occurring after the death of the “prince of the Covenant”,[6] which many scholars believe to be the killing of the high priest Onias III in 181 BCE.[7] But of course one can see how some Christians would wonder if this was about Jesus. Regardless of how one interprets Daniel implicitly, neither Daniel nor any other Hebrew Bible writer explicitly speaks of a “second” coming of the Messiah. We have to go to the New Testament for that.
As a review of what we’ve already covered, a few of the things that the Hebrew Bible writers do speak of the Davidic Messiah doing are the restoration of the eternal kingdom of Israel and law and righteousness/justice, ruling from Jerusalem, building a Temple, ushering in an era where Israel will finally have peace, independence, and prosperity, and protecting Israel from never again being harmed by enemies. Several prophecies even go so far as to predict that the nations will pay tribute to this anointed son of David, and that he will rule the nations and deliver God’s prophetic word to the people. There is even an expectation that he will bring forgiveness as priest, as it was their sin that caused them to lose all the promised blessing of YHVH. In fact, because some of the messianic prophecies were priestly in nature, and others were monarchical, there is even a tradition found at Qumran that there would be two Messiahs.[8] And as we’ve noted, Daniel and Psalm 2 and 89 and Micah 5 even go so far as to predict that Israel would become the one world order under the Messiah’s rule. Therefore, one would expect no one need tell the world when the Messiah comes, as it should be obvious to all the world, unless it’s some sort of spiritual mystery and not fulfilled in an earthly way.
And as we’ve seen, Jesus left the earth without having done any of these things, at least not in a full earthly fulfillment, except for his sacrifice for the people. The only other option left, apart from spiritualizing the prophecies, was for the New Testament writers to have Jesus come back again to accomplish all things written of him. As we’ve seen, the tendency to speak of a second coming is nearly universal in the New Testament. But what is not universal is what they say Jesus will accomplish when he comes back, as many of the writers did in fact spiritualize Christ’s kingdom, sometimes even speaking of him already reigning in the heavenly places, having subjected all things under his feet—while other passages speak of him subjecting all things when he comes back.
Perhaps one of the most interesting and explicit explanations for why there are two messianic comings, and the purpose of the delay, is in Hebrews 9:28 and 10:13. The purpose of the first was to take away sins, the second to save those who eagerly wait for him. Why the delay? It’s “until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.” This of course raises even more questions, as the prophets seem to enjoy doing.
A Judgment, Redemption, and Resurrection
One of the most prevalent indicators of what is to happen at the Parousia, apart from Jesus “coming back”, is judgment.[9] The element of judgment is especially prevalent in all the different accounts of the Olivet Discourse. As we’ve seen, some of those predictions of judgment appear to have already happened, such as the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.[10] On the other hand, some do not appear to have happened, such as the earth being consumed with fire, and the cosmos being rolled up like scroll to be replaced with a new Heaven and a new Earth.
Another very common theme to be realized in the future for the biblical authors is a final redemption, along with the judgment that occurs at Jesus’ coming. Like the parable of the wheat and tares, both the judgment of the evil and the gathering of God’s elect appear to be a future event that happens at the same time.[11] For Paul especially, this coming was not just about merely salvation, the resurrection of the dead, and living with Jesus forever, but also a redemption of all creation, where the glory that was coming was not even to be compared with current creation, where the children of God would be revealed and they would be freed from decay and corruption, and their bodies would be transformed into something much more glorious.[12]
We’ve seen several examples of how the messianic promises were pushed out into the future, where their fulfillment was believed to be quite literal and even sometimes earthly. But another tendency we’ve already noted is for the authors to spiritualize the arrival of the kingdom. And perhaps one of the most common ways the New Testament authors do this is in wording that seems to suggest that the judgment and redemption of Jesus coming is closely tied to our physical death. This of course would align perfectly with the view of some modern apologists that there is no time or even an “after” after death. While some of the passages about the future hope of Jesus’ followers point to a period where the meek inherit the earth, many others suggest not only a new Earth, but also one which is after death, before which there can be no rest.[13] The parables of the laborers in the vineyard would only receive their reward at the last day.[14] The “coming age” was after resurrection according to Luke and John.[15] Paul says that when our earthly tent (i.e., body) is destroyed, then we have a building from God (a permanent structure, versus a temporary tent) eternal in the heavens, when what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. God’s spirit was given as a guarantee in the meantime of that future hope.[16] Hebrews chapters 10 and 11, referencing Habakkuk 2:3, has some of the most poetic language about that hope in Christ that is to be had after death.
Of course, Paul quite explicitly speaks of Jesus’ second coming as an earthly event, happening during the lives of some still living, and only the resurrection of those then dead, and arriving with judgment.[17]
But perhaps some of the most interesting spiritualizations of the kingdom are the way it is portrayed as coming unobservably! One could imagine such passages used to harmonize the various teachings of the coming of Christ, despite those that explicitly say that all the nations will witness it, looking up into the clouds where it will manifest.[18] The nature of this spiritual kingdom was not one in which the king bestowed power to those closest to him, but one in which he allowed them die just like him—where rule was not by lording their power over others, but by serving others, even to the point of giving of one’s own life.[19] Jesus’s “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem was not an earthly military conquest, but a heavenly one, a sacrifice by which he defeated Satan’s unseen powers.[20] Luke gets quite explicit, saying that the kingdom was not observable at all: it was already among them! (17:20) For John, one was “born” into the kingdom “by water and spirit”.[21] Only the spirit gives life, but the flesh is useless.[22] By chapter 18, Jesus explicitly denies that his kingdom is of this world. In Acts 14:22, it is through persecution that entry into the kingdom is gained. Paul calls followers of Jesus “living stones” which now comprise the true, heavenly, spiritual Temple.[23] It has been observed that such statements are radically non-apocalyptic and even a denial of eschatology itself, that there will even be an eschaton at the end of the age.[24] I’ll let the reader decide. For an analysis of whether the Hebrew Bible ever portrayed the awaited Messiah as being a suffering servant, make sure to check out my book here.
[1] Lecture 26, at 44:00, currently on Youtube. And the irony is not lost on me that many would consider this book in that category.
[2] This is not to see that the Hebrew Bible only speaks of one anointed, though. As I point out elsewhere, there are some passages that speak of the Messiah as a priestly figure, not Davidic. In fact, in the chronology of the Bible’s own narratives, the very first anointed of YHVH are in fact the priests, not kings.
[3] E.g., Daniel: The John Walvoord Prophecy Commentary, by John Walvoord. It is also noteworthy that this is not altogether different from what the Jews are still waiting on.
[4] Daniel 12:1-2
[5] Introduction to the New Testament History and Literature, by Dale Martin, ch. 4
[6] 11:22
[7] 2 Maccabees 4:1, 33; Benson Commentary. Bruce Gore is a person of faith who has a very interesting series of lectures on Youtube that cover the history of the Bible and its prophecies, including Daniel’s, without trying to make it about modern events or nations.
[8] Zechariah 6:9-14 is perhaps the origin of this idea, which speaks of both the Davidic Zerubbabel and Aaronic Joshua as anointed, i.e., “messiah.” Jeremiah 33 seems to corroborate this two-fold nature of the Messiah(s) as well. There is actually only one Qumran text that explicitly mentions two Messiahs, which is probably late, and another which speaks of a supreme Messiah (singular) who will rule heaven and earth, which sounds remarkably similar to the Christian gospels. All other mentions of the Messiah at Qumran are singular, at least explicitly. “The Messiah at Qumran”, by Michael Wise and James Tabor, libarary.biblicalarcheology.org. In other words, the modern scholarly portrayal of the dual-Messiah belief as a main view of the Qumran community is not well supported.
[9] E.g., see Matthew 16:27-28, 26:64; Acts 17:30-31; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10
[10] Apart from the Olivet Discourses, also compare 1 Corinthians 2:6.
[11] Matthew 13:24-50; compare Matthew 16:27-28; Luke 19:11-27, 44; Acts 17:30-31; 2 Timothy, chapters 3 and 4.
[12] Romans 8:18; 1 Corinthians 7:25-31, and ch. 15.
[13] Matthew 16:24-26; 19:10-12, 28
[14] Matthew 20:1-16).
[15] Luke 18:30; 20:34-36; John 5:28, 29
[16] 2 Corinthians 5.
[17] 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11
[18] Revelation 1:7, quoting Daniel 7:13. Some have wondered how this passage can be harmonized with 1 Thessalonians 4, where it is assumed that not everyone would see him; the difficulty gets even greater if you harmonize 2 Peter 3 with this coming, where there can be no more earth afterword, but only the great judgment where every knee bows to Jesus. For further analysis from the perspective of a believer, see www.gotquestions.org/every-eye-will-see-Him.html
[19] Matthew 19:20-28
[20] Matthew 21.
[21] 3:5
[22] 6:63
[23] 1 Corinthians 3:16-17
[24] This view is seen more clearly in the Gospel of Thomas. See New Testament History and Literature, by Dale Martin, ch. 8.