Saturday 14 March 2015

One Second Coming

Instead of saying there have been many "comings" of the Lord, as many preterists say, could we instead say there shall be one future second coming and kingdom - inaugurated at the cross, with an undeterminably long period in-between (a period in which the length of time itself is not really of the essence)?

In my mind I'm exploring the possibility that Christ's "coming" in the NT could have a meaning which always (in each NT passage) includes the concept of Christ's second and ultimate coming to earth, rather than ever (in any NT passage) having an exclusively first-century meaning.

Concluding that the NT has a unified concept of Christ's second coming (rather than multiple concepts, some of them applying exclusively to the first-century) would I suppose depend on whether the descriptions surrounding the use of the term "coming" in each passage can or must mutually apply to each other passage.

For example, Paul always seems to connect Christ's coming with the theme of the Church's ultimate hope (which we understand to be the resurrection). Can or must the theme of the resurrection apply in each other passage mentioning Christ's coming?

Consider the passage involving Caiaphas. It is not known whether Caiaphas and his cohorts saw the ascension - it's almost certain Caiaphas did not see AD70. But we do know with certainty that all of them will see the coming of the Lord when they are resurrected to face judgment on the last day. So the fact they died before seeing that Day is not really of the essence - because their judgment is already set.

So it seems to work to super-impose the concept of a future coming (including the concept of the resurrection) onto the passage involving Caiaphas (even though the passage does not explicitly mention the concept of the resurrection). It's quite easy to make that super-imposition onto the passage if we actually believe in a future resurrection.

On the other hand, to exclude the concept of a future coming and resurrection from the passage requires some gymnastics with terms in the passage itself in order to make sense of the passage, in my mind. (It requires playing around with the meaning of words like "you", "ye", see", "coming" and "on the clouds".) It requires giving different meanings to the same terms from one passage to another. It requires treating pronouns and their scope differently from one passage to another.

It seems the Apostles constantly had to work at explaining the apparent delay between the Kingdom's inauguration and its consummation. The concept of the resurrection was their key to unifying both concepts.

So with the concept of a future resurrection in mind, could we can understand Christ's coming and Kingdom as follows:

Jesus indeed inaugurated the Kingdom at the cross - thereafter He indeed ascended into into His glory - there was indeed an outpouring on the Day of Pentecost and onwards - there was indeed the fulfilment in the first century of everything He (and Daniel) had predicted with regard to the Temple and Judaea - and there shall yet come the Day of His coming, His second appearing, when every eye shall see Him, and the dead shall be raised, some to life, others to damnation, when the world shall end, and there shall be new heavens and a new earth wherein only righteousness shall dwell.

The Kingdom Now/Not Yet.

'Inaugurated Eschatology'.

Not multiple "comings" meaning one thing in one passage and something else in another with some applying exclusively to this person's lifetime, another exclusively to the first century, another to the future - but one second coming - with the delay being explainable by the fact that God's promises will not come to pass without this thing called the resurrection.

Paul was willing to be judged on his siding with the resurrection-camp!

The resurrection was at the crux of how he explained the seeming anomalies in his message of the Kingdom.

It does say He will appear the second time - not multiple times in multiple ways - but simply the second time.

Peter said the Prophets foretold that Christ would suffer then enter into His glory - what was little understood, the Apostles said, was that the heavens must receive Him until the time of His second coming.

Whether or not a person dies prior to seeing the promised coming and Kingdom is therefore not of the essence. That principle applies to all of us - including Caiaphas.

The length of time that will span between the destruction of the Temple and the Lord's coming is also not of the essence - intrinsically, covenantally, spiritually speaking. And no-one not even the son of man knew how long that delay must be.

What is of the essence during the interim is that we believe, and look for Him, and that we witness unto Jesus among all nations in the power of the Spirit.

Still weighing it all up...

No comments:

Post a Comment