The (Second?) Coming of Christ in Early Christianity

In The Jesus Puzzle, Earl Doherty makes the point that in the earliest Christian writings (being for him the letters of Paul, Hebrews, and Revelation) no mention of Jesus' apocalyptic coming is described as a return, a second coming From this he draws the conclusion that these authors did not, in fact, believe it was a second coming but instead a first comingthe implication being that these authors could not then have believed Jesus to have already been a living being who walked the earth.

quote:

---

Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle (2006):

​

If readers can free themselves from Gospel preconceptions, they should find that these and other references of the same nature convey the distinct impression that this will be the Lord Jesus' first and only coming to earth, that this longing to see Christ has in no way been previously fulfilled. We keep waiting or the sense of "return" or the simple use of a word like "again." We wait for these writers to clarity, to acknowledge, that Jesus had already been on earth, had begun the work he would complete at the Parousia (his "coming" at the End-time); that men and women had formerly witnessed their deliverance in the event of Jesus' death and resurrection; that he had been "revealed" (one of Paul's favorite words in speaking of the Parousia) to the sight of all in his incarnated life as Jesus of Nazareth. But never an echo of such ideas do we hear in the background of these passages. (p. 50)

---

This is a question that I've considered before; and I had never really found anything of a satisfactory answer. It had appeared to me as though this was indeed one of a few good points from the Mythicist camp. And at first it seems really hard to get around what appears to be a complete ignorance of a 'first' coming of Jesus by early Christians.But then I began to look at things a little more closely, and I realize now that the argument is not so simple nor so straight.As Doherty goes on to say:

quote:

---

Doherty (2006):

​

Perhaps the most telling reference of them all is Hebrews 10:37:

"For soon, very soon (in the words of scripture) 'he who is to come will come and will not delay.' "

This is from Habakkuk 2:3 (LXX). The prophet was referring to God himself, but by the Christian period this was one of those many biblical passages reinterpreted as referring to the Messiah. Indeed, the Greek participle erchomenos, which the Septuagint (LXX) employs, became a virtual title, used with a masculine article, "the Coming One," and referred to the expected savior figure who would arrive at the End-time. Hebrews is clearly using it as a reference to Christ. (p. 50)

---

The word erchomenos bothers Doherty because it is not a clear reference to a second coming. Certainly, if the author of Hebrews believed Jesus to have already been on earth once before, he would use words to reflect this belief. Paul too uses a word, parousia, which presents no implication of an initial visit to earth by Christ. Did these authors not believe Jesus to have already come to earth once before? Is that why they use language appearing ignorant of an initial visit?One way to address this, I thought, might be to look at the language used by the folk who clearly did believe Jesus to have already come to earth: the gospel writers. How do they talk about his 'second' coming? If they use words and phrases that clearly describe Christ's apocalyptic coming as a return, then Doherty really does have an interesting point. But if their language appears as ignorant of a first coming as that of Paul and the author of Hebrews, then Doherty's argument falls flatwe clearly wouldn't be justified concluding that they may not have believed in an historical Jesus on grounds of their wording here since even folk who clearly did believe in an historical Jesus used the same wording. So what do we find?In the gospel of John, Jesus is reported as saying: "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" (21:22). The word used here is the same word used in the Hebrews passage quoted by Doherty, erchomai. John clearly believed in an historical Jesusa Jesus who had already come to earth. Yet he fails to use language indicative of this belief when talking about the 'apocalyptic' return of Christ.The two men in white robes in Acts state: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (1:11). Again, the word used here is the same as in John and Hebrews.These Christians, who certainly believe in an historical Jesus, are using the same language to talk about Christ's second coming as the Christians writing in Hebrews. Repeatedly this word is used as a reference to the return of Jesus (for another gospel example: Mt 16:27—28). Clearly, the use of this word, erchomai, to reference Jesus' eschatological arrival cannot be used to rule out an author's belief in a first coming of Jesus.Paul's language is also echoed in the writings of Christians who clearly believed in Jesus as an historical individual. In Matthew, the disciples ask Jesus: "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (24:3). The word used here is parousia: the same as what Paul uses in his first epistle to the church in Corinth:

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 15:23 (NRSV):

​

But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming [parousia] those who belong to Christ.

---

Paul doesn't use any wording to clarify that this coming will be a return or second coming; but neither does Matthew, and he clearly did believe in an historical Jesus.Based on these observations, then, it would appear as though it was common practice for early Christians to use rather plain language in describing the second coming of Jesus, language that was not specific in indicating whether the coming of Christ was a first coming or a second come. The conclusion that Paul and the author of Hebrews are not likely talking about a second coming simply because they do not specifically say so cannot stand; the way they talked about Christ's apocalyptic arrival is simply the way all Christians talked about it, whether they clearly believed in a first coming or whether their beliefs on a first coming are in question.The language used by Paul and the author of Hebrews cannot be used to build a case against their belief in an historical Jesus.Now my question for this thread is: Why do early Christians use such language to describe a second coming? Why no mention of this coming as a 'return'? And is there any other terminology that shows up in connection with the 'second coming'?JonBible Study please! Edited by Jon, : Subtitle

And Doherty has a dismissive answer for this:

quote:

---

Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle (2006):

​

If ek deuterou in verse 28 means "a second time," the parallel with verse 27 is destroyed. Verse 27 is saying "first men die, and after that (or 'next') they are judged." There is no sense here of a second time for anything; the writer is simply offering us a sequence of events: death, followed by judgement.

​

Why not make verse 28 offer a sequence as well? "Christ was offered once (his sacrifice), and after that (next) he will appear to bring salvation." The idea of appearing a "second time" would be intrusive here. Since the writer is presenting his readers with some kind of parallel between verses 27 and 28 (note also the "once" in both parts), it seems unlikely he would introduce an element which does not fit the parallel, especially one he does not need. Ek deuterou can have the alternate meaning of "secondly" of "next in sequence," like the similar word deuteron, which appears in this sense in 1 Corinthians 12:28. Just as a person's death is followed by judgement, so is Christ's sacrifice followed by his appearance, but with no indication of the length of time between the two. As long ago as the turn of the century, Vaughan (quoted in The Expositor's Greek Testament, Hebrews, p.340) translated verse 28: "Christ died once and the next thing before him is the Advent."

​

Thus even in Hebrews 9:27-28 it seems there is no Second Coming of Christ (p. 334 n.25)

---

The question we have to ask here is: Is there any reason to read this Doherty's way? He makes the argument that the parallel is broken if we translate as "second time", but that is really not the case at all. The parallel, if it exists, is a structural parallel, not a verbal one. Had the author intended a verbal parallel, he could have as easily used the same word in verse 28 as he uses in verse 27 for 'after' (metah). But the parallel is structural: Death | Judgment ; Sacrifice | Salvation. And as the parallel is structural, the issue of how to translate ek deuterou cannot rest on preservation of the parallel.But suppose the issue of translating Hebrews 9:28 is really up in the airor even is as Doherty claims, do we still not need to address the fact that it is fallacious to expect explicit mention of a second coming from authors such as Paul when even those who clearly believed in an historical Jesus do not make this mention with explicit language?I'm not sure how we can get around this. It's pretty silly to expect Paul to be so specific about the 'secondness' of Jesus' coming when no other authors wrote that way. Early Christians just didn't seem to see the need to specify that Jesus' 'parousia' would be a second coming and so none of them ever talked about it in this way.Or so seems to be the picture that's developing before me.Jon

As you may have guessed, there is a Doherty response to this as well:

quote:

---

Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle (2006):

​

The writer of Hebrews also uses phaneroō in speaking of what has happened in the present time (9:26). "But now, at the completion of the ages . . . he (Christ) has been manifested." Again, there is no reason why this verb cannot be taken in its basic meaning: Christ has been brought to light; God has revealed knowledge about him. (p. 37)

---

But again, as with the other instances of words that Doherty would like to brush off, this word is used elsewhere to speak of an historical Jesus. John the Baptist says in the Gospel of John, "I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed [phaneroō] to Israel" (1:31). Or again at the end of John's Gospel, when the resurrected Jesus appears to his disciples while they are fishing:

quote:

---

John 21:1 (NRSV):

​

After this Jesus revealed [phaneroō] himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias; and he revealed [phaneroō] himself in this way.

---

How can we discount the idea that the author of Hebrews is talking about a physical appearance of Jesus on earth when other authors who clearly believed in the historical reality of Jesus use the same wording to talk about his presence?The simple answer: We can't.Jon