EvC Forum: 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'?

Jon

Bible Study please!

Edited by Jon, : Subtitle

Love your enemies!

3 online now:	CosmicChimp, LamarkNewAge, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,832 Year: 4,089/9,624 Month: 960/974 Week: 287/286 Day: 8/40 Hour: 0/4