"...the only reason futurists believe a 2nd coming of Christ is still future is the same reason Jews believe ALL references to the Messiah's coming are still future (they think the events have to be fulfilled physically-literally)"

JEWISH CONCEPTS

Jewish rabbis have taunted Christians throughout church history saying Jesus can't be their Messiah, since the Messiah would accomplish redemption in one generation with no gaps, delays, perentheses or postponements. The full establishment of the Kingdom could not be delayed. The Messiah could not fail to set it up and have to come back a second time to make good on His promises. There would only be one advent of the Messiah, with temporary suffering and ultimate victory phases. Jews would agree with Christian futurists that the OT prophecies about the kingdom were meant to be fulfilled literally and materialistically. In fact, it is this very point they insist Christians are most inconsistent on. They say that since the Messiah was to fulfill these things in a physical-materialistic way, and since they obviously haven't been fulfilled that way yet, the Messiah hasn't come. Nowhere does the OT teach a "second coming" to fufill the rest of the things he was unable to fulfill the first time. If Jesus failed to fulfill them the first time, he could not be the Messiah. Notice how various Jewish writers express this :

The Jew refuses to accept the excuse that the major prophecies concerning the Messiah will only be fulfilled in a "second coming." He expects the Messiah to complete his mission in his first attempt. The dew therefore believes that the Messiah is yet to come. [Pinches Stolper, ed. The Real Messiah. Reprinted from Jewish Youth, June 1973. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. New York: 1973. p. 15]

Since Jesus did not fulfill the most important Messianic prophecies, they expected him to return to complete this task in a "second coming.. At first, Christians expected that this "second coming" would come very shortly... in their lifetime. When their prayer was not answered, they began to hope that it would come a thousand years after Jesus' death. This was the millennium or "thousand year kingdom." Finally, after a thousand years passed and Jesus still had not returned they postponed his "second coming to an indefinite time We therefore see that the early Christians were forced to radically alter the Jewish concept of the Messiah in order to explain Jesus' failure. This, compounded with the pagan influence in the early church, gave birth to a Messianic concept totally alien to Judaism [Pinches Stolper, ed. pp. 32, 33]

...You will discover that whenever any really strong question [such as why Jesus hasn't fulfilled all Messianic prophecies]... is asked [of the Christians], the standard answer is that it refers to the second coming. It therefore becomes extremely important to ascertain the validity of this claim. The success of the Christian claim or its failure rests to a very large extent on the theory of the second coming. ...It is clearly an answer born of desperation. [Samuel Levine. You Take Jesus, I'll Take God. Los Angeles 1980. p. 15]

...most of the early Christians thought ...that Jesus would return within their own lifetime. ...However, after many years went by, and the generation that lived in Jesus' generation had all died, it became rather apparent that Jesus would not reappear in the near future. The doctrine was therefore changed so that his reappearance was not necessarily going to be in the near future. [Samuel Levine. p. 16]

The Jews never had the concept of a second coming, and since it was the Jews who first taught the notion of a Messiah, via the Jewish prophets, it seems quite reasonable to respect their opinion more than anyone else's. [Samuel Levine. p. 23]

To spend almost two millennia trying to justify a pagan mythology, a mistaken messiah belief, and a mistaken eschatology stupefies the rational mind. [Rachel Zurer. A dew Examines Christianity. New York: 1985. p. 162]

A good book of the Bible that both Jews and Christians accept as highly messianic is the book of Isaiah. All one needs to do is read straight through the book noticing the "time indicators" (i.e. "then," "when" and "in that day") and the messianic events that are attached to them. It should become apparent very quickly that Isaiah did not know of any "second coming" separated by thousands of years from the first coming. Events futurists claim are still future are interspersed indiscriminately throughout the whole context of Isaiah with events which Jesus fulfilled in His "first coming." Yet all these events would happen "in that day." And the only reason futurists believe SOME of them are still future is the same reason Jews believe ALL of them are still future (they think the events have to be fulfilled physically-literally). But the "time indicators" are in the context of all these events, both the events which futurists label as still future and the events which the NT shows as fulfilled in Jesus' earthly ministry.

Original Eschatology

What was the original understanding of the primitive church about Christ's parousia? When and how was it changed? Who was responsible for it? In the middle of the second century church fathers (like Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, 2 Clement, and others) postulated the "postponed second advent-parousia" idea. It didn't come from the OT prophets, nor the NT prophets. The only thing in the NT which even comes close to teaching a "second advent" is Heb. 9:28, where it says Christ will "appear a second time." This was using the symbolism of the High Priest at Yom Kippur when he took the blood into the holy place and then reappeared back outside the Temple to announce that atonement had been accomplished. The early church understood this to be simply a reappearance during His one-and-only advent into human affairs, not an entirely different advent after a long indefinite period. And, as the following quotes show, the original expectation of these early Christians was one of imminency. They expected all this to occur in their lifetime. They were right on the TIME of fulfillment, but wrong on the NATURE of fulfillment, because they had carried over too much of the Jewish physical/literal concepts. About the only parts of the Jewish concepts they left behind were the racial and nationalistic aspirations. Those things were spiritualized, but the rest were still literalized. This forced them to put the fulfillment of much OT prophey off into the future at a "second coming" just like tbe Jewish quotes above have alleged.

Was the "second advent" idea the original understanding of the apostolic church, or was it an invention of the mid-second century fathers? Note what. N. D. Kelly, Thomas F. Torrance, and Jaroslav Pelikan say about this.

...in the apostolic age, as the New Testament documents reveal, the Church was pervaded with an intense conviction that the hope to which Israel had looked forward yearningly had at last been fulfilled. ...history had reached its climax and the reign of God, as so many of our Lord's parables imply, had been effectively inaugurated. (John N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines . Revised Edition, 1978. pp. 459-61)

... [but by the middle of the second century] the Christian's confident and joyous assurance that the age to come has already broken into the present age has faded into the background. He looks upon God, not as the divine Father to Whom he has free access, but as the sternly just distributor of rewards and penalties, while grace has lost the primarily eschatological character it had in the New Testament and has become something to be acquired....the temptation to degenerate into a pedestrian moralism in which the "realized" element in its authentic eschatology finds no place was one to which Christianity was as much exposed in the patristic as in every other age. (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. pp. 459-461)

When Did Concepts Change? Note Kelly's statement here that the original "authentic eschatology" was characterized by a "realized" (preterist) concept that the hope of Israel had been fulfilled and that the kingdom of God had been inau gurated. This was widely accepted in apostolic times, but not deeply understood, so it didn't take much for physical-literal concepts to over shadow it. But the original preter ist (or "realized") eschatology never completely disappeared. We see glimpses of it reappearing through out the second, third and fourth centuries in Athanasius, Origen, Melito, Eusebius, the Odes of Solomon and many others. They all provide pieces of the puzzle, but no one seems to have put them together into a complete and con sistent picture again after 70 AD. Hear Kelly further:

About the middle of the second century Christian eschatology enters upon a new, rather more mature phase. ...Justin teaches on the basis of Old Testament prophecy that, in addition to His coming in lowliness at His incarnation, Christ will come again in glory ... new emphases and fresh lines of thought begin to appear, partly for apologetic motives and partly as the result of growing speculation. The cIash with Judaism and paganism made it imperative to set out the bases of the revealed dogmas more thoroughly. ...millenarianism, or the theory that the returned Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years, came to find increasing support among Christian teachers. We can observe these tendencies at work in the Apologists. Justin, as we have suggested, ransacks the Old Testament for proof, as against Jewish critics, that the Messiah must have a twofold coming. His argument is that, while numerous contexts no doubt predict His coming in humiliation, there are others (e.g. Is. 53:8-12; Ezek. 7f; Dan. 7:9-28; Zech. 12:10-12; Ps. 72:1-20; 110:1-7) which clearly presuppose His coming in majesty and power. The former coming was enacted at the incarnation, but the latter still lies in the future. It will take place, he suggests, at Jerusalem, where Christ will be recognized by the Jews who dishonored Him as the sacrifice which avails for all penitent sinners, and where He will eat and drink with His disciples; and He will reign there a thousand years. This millenarian, or "chiliastic," doctrine was widely popular at this time. ...[But] he confesses that he knows pious, pure-minded Christians who do not share this belief... (John N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. Revised Edition, 1978. pp. 464-466)

It is important to recall that the apostolic witness to Christ did not speak of his advent (parousia), any more than of his kingdom (greek-word unreproducable) in the plural, for strictly speaking there is only one saving (greek-word unproducable) of the incarnate Son which reaches from his coming in great humility to his coming again with great glory -"whose kingdom shall have no end." [Epiphanius, Anc., 110f; fide), 17 and MPG, 42.885] The term (greek-word unreproducable) was used in the New Testament to speak of all three: the coming, arrival, and presence of Christ... His presence is an advent and his advent is a presence. "The hour comes and now is," as Jesus once said. [John 4:23] It is instructive to find that the plural word, "ad. vents" or (greek word unreproducable) was not found in Christian literature for more than a century after the ascension of Christ, when it was used to distinguish between his first coming and his second coming. In one re vealing statement, however, Justin Martyr spoke of what takes place in the midst of Christ's parousia. In other words, here and now in the on going life of the Church we live in the midst of the advent-pres ence of Christ, already partake of the great regeneration (greek ommitted) of the future, and share in its blessings with one another. [Thomas F. Torrance, The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church. Edinboro: 1988. pp. 299, 300. See also Justin Martyr, Apol, I.52; Dial., 14, 32, 40, 49, 51, etc.; Hippolytus, De Chr. et ant., 44; In Dan., 4:18, 23, 39, etc.]

The "coming of the Lord" in later Jewish prophecy and apocalyptic also referred to Jesus as the Christ; but now it had to be divided into two comings, the first already accomplished in the days of his flesh and the second still in the future. Beyond the difference between humiliation and glory it wee not always clear what the basis was for this division, which neither Judaism nor the anti-Judaistic Marcionites would accept. [Jaroslav Pelikan. The Christian Tradition-A History of the Development of Doc trine (5 vols.). (Volume 1) The Emergence of the Catholic Tradi tion (100-600). Univ. of Chicago: 1971. p. 19. He makes reference to Just. Dial. 49.2 (Goodspeed 147); Tert. Apol. 21.15 (CCSL I:125); Orig. Cels. 1.56 (GCS 2:107); Clem. Recogn. 1.49.2-5 (GCS 51:36);; Lact. Inst. 4:12.14 15 (CSEL 19:313) end Tert. Marc. 3.7.14 (CCSL I:516-517)]

How Did This Happen?

Why did this idea of two different parousia's (or advents) develop? According to Kurt Aland, it came about because of a shift in eschatological expectations. Justin Martyr, Shepherd of Hermas and 2 Clement seem to be credited with changing things because doubts about imminency were beginning to ooze into their mince. The thought never seems to occur to them that their concept of the NATURE of fulfillment was the problem instead of the TIME of fulfillment. Rather than shift to a spirituaI nature of fulfillment, they instead tampered with the time statements. Listen to these suggestions by Kurt Aland:

...we discover a decisive turning point in the second half of the second century. ... a watershed... decisive for the development of the Christian church. ...it was the definite conviction not Only of Paul, but of all Chris tians of that time, that they themselves would experi ence the return of the Lord. ...The Apocalypse expresses the fervent waiting for the end within the circles in which the writer lived-not an expecta tion that will happen at some unknown point X in time, but one in the immediate present. . .. If we browse through the writ ings of that period, we observe that this expectation of the end continued....In fact, we also find in the writings of the first half of the second century sufficient evidence to indicate that the expectation of the Parousia was by no means at an end then. ...At the end of the Didache ("The teaching of the twelve apostles"), from the time shortly after 100, there is, for example, an apocalyptic chap ter which corresponds com pletely in its outline to the Syn optic apocalypse in Mark 13 (and the parallel chapters in the other Synoptic Gospels); here we can only very cautiously say that it uses the same words, but that its content is imperceptibly in the process of change. ...It is quite similar to the Epistle of Barnabas, which was written a little later than the Didache, where we read: "The day is near in which everything will perish together with the evil. The Lord and his recompense are near..

...Again and again the old expressions echo. They echo apparently almost unchanged, but doubt about the imminence of the Lord's return is increasingly mixed with them until around the middle of the second century when the Shepherd of Hermas thinks he has found a solution and expresses it with great thoroughness and emphasis: the Parousia - the Lord's return - has been postponed for the sake of Christians themselves. ...The building of the sower has not been stopped; it is only temporarily suspended. Therefore - and this is the warn ing of the Shepherd of Hermas, on account of which the entire work was really written - do good works for your purifica tion, for if you delay too long, the construction of the tower may be finished and you will not be included as stones built into it. The thought of a postpone ment of the Parousia ap pears all through 2 Clement... but here it is expressly mentioned for 1 he first time. Thus, about the middle of the second century, a decisive turning point occurs - one which can be compared in significance to all other great turning points, including the Reformation.

Obviously, we cannot fix this turning point precisely at the year 150, for it took a while until the thought caught hold everywhere. But a development does begin with the Shepherd of Hermas which could not be stopped - a development at the end of which we stand today. As soon as the thought of a postponement of the Parousia was uttered once - and indeed not only incidentally, but thoroughly presented in an entire writing- it developed its own life and power. At first, people looked at it as only a brief postponement, as the Shepherd of Hermas clearly expresses. But soon, as the end of the world did not occur, it was conceived of as a longer and longer period, until finally - this is today's situation - nothing but the thought of a postponement exists in people's consciousness. [Kurt Aland. A History of Christianty. (2 vols.) Fortress Press: 1985. Vol. 1, pp. 87-102]

To anyone sensitive to the issue of inspiration of Scripture these words must drop like bombshells. How can we justify the second century brethren tampering with the clear words of Scripture like 1 his? It would have been better for them to change their physical-literal interpretative method than to put the NT writers in the position of false prediction. Above we have heard four different well-known students of Church history pinpoint the middle of the second century as the time when a paradigm shift in eschatological concepts occurred. Aland says this time was as decisive and significant for the development of the church as "all other great turning points, including the Reformation." These are pretty powerful statements, and they're coming from someone who knows a "decisive turning point" when he sees one.

What Have We Seen So Far?

To summarize, we noticed that Kelly, Torrance, Pelikan and Aland say the "authentic eschatology" of the apostolic church was charac terized by the concept that all prophecy had been or was being "realized" in Christ's once-for-all advent into the affairs of men. They did not conceive of two different advents separated by a long indefinite time period. They saw one short fulfillment period with two phases to it: a suffering humilia tion phase and a victorious con summation phase. They expected the consummation of all these things during their lifetime and generation. This is the same way the Jews have always viewed it, and they (like the Jews) hung onto their physical-literal concepts of the NATURE of fulfillment. When the remaining Fulfillments associ ated with Christ's parousia did not occur in the physical-literal way they had expected, they assumed they had not been fulfilled at all. So they began adjusting their con cepts of the TIME of fulfillment, instead of considering the possibil ity that their concepts of the NA TURE of fulfillment were the only things needing adjustment. This is where the mistake was made, and it has affected Christianity ever since (as Aland ably points out). Unfortunately it occurred before the creeds were developed, so this misunderstanding was incorpo rated into them. This is one area where need some adjustments. But they will be good adjustments, put ting the emphasis back on the "re alized" spiritual nature of Christ and His now-consummated king dom. Let's not continue making the same mistake many of the Jews did by failing to recognize the spiritual fulfillment.

Perhaps one reason the original "realized eschatology" of the apostolic church dwindIed rapidly after the apostolic era is because the church thrust all connections with Judaism aside after the 70AD conflict. It was not popular in the Roman empire to be associated with the Jews after 70 AD (for some strange reason). The church went to great lengths to divorce itself from any Jewish connections. Un fortunately this included its good connections as well as its bad. The church quit listening to Jewish in fluences and listened too much to Gentile and pagan influences or to no one at all. It is no wonder that Montanism and Gnosticism sprang up so quickly. Abandonment of the good Jewish connections resulted almost immediately in their inability to understand eschatology (which was Jewish to the core). It is not surprising therefore to hear Eusebius claim that chiliasts (such as Papias and Irenaeus) erroneously interpreted the prophecies in a physically-literal way because they failed to realize they were "propounded mystically." [Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Baker reprint:: 1971. Book 3, Chapter 39. p. 126] They just couldn't completely let go of the incorrect Jewish concepts:

...the Jewish expectations had, through Jewish converts, found a foothold in the Christian Church ... such an influence passing through Jewish Christians from the Jews to the Church would have been the most natural result of the situation and the connections. [D. H. Kromminga. The Millennium in the Church. "Studies in the History of Christian Chiliasm" Eerdmans, Grand Rapids: 1945. p. 39]

The Jews had conceived of the Messiah and his kingdom as a materialistic/nationalistic supremacy over all other nations. Early Christians knew Jesus taught a kingdom that was "not of this world", ...NOT materialistic. The same problem persists today, and can be solved by following correct Biblical interpretation methods. We need to get back to the study of the Old Covenant. We must immerse ourselves in the culture, history, language and religion of the "Jews" of Jesus' day if we hope to go any further and deeper in our understanding of the Bible. Christianity is not some totally new religion. It is the fulfillment of the promises made to the Israelites (on behalf of the Gentiles as well). It was directed "to the Jews first." It is no longer dangerous to claim affinity with OT Israel, so we could surgically remove the pagan influences and replace them with a much more OT typological understanding which recognizes the fulfillments in Christ. What a difference it would make!

(The above was a quote by Ed Stevens in his article, "Answer to Balyeat's Questions" in a friendly debate between "partial" and "consistent" preterists. It appeared in the July-Sept. 1992 issue of Kingdom Counsel)

For subscription information to Kingdom Counsel: http://users.penn.com/~kingdompubs/