Historical Parousia vs. Theological Parousia

by Roderick Edwards
It is easy enough to make the case from the Bible for the 1st century Parousia, but there is a much more difficult task when it comes to making the case from history. Indeed, even when futurists almost admit the biblical text leads to an understanding of a 1st century fulfillment of Christ’s Return, they will instead run for the foxhole of history where they can bunker down and seem safe. Why then, is there this seemingly great distinction between the historical parousia versus the theological parousia?It is easy enough to make the case from the Bible for the 1st century Parousia, but there is a much more difficult task when it comes to making the case from history. Indeed, even when futurists almost admit the biblical text leads to an understanding of a 1st century fulfillment of Christ’s Return, they will instead run for the foxhole of history where they can bunker down and seem safe. Why then, is there this seemingly great distinction between the historical parousia versus the theological parousia?This has been the discussion hidden away in the comment threads of the article: Jesus’ Promise of a First Century ‘Parousia’ – Not Clear? -- by Walt Hibbard



The excellent and honest question is posed by a Roman Catholic Preterist and PlanetPreterist columnist named Parker. Parker offers five options as to the question, but first he gives us an honest admission.



"I am honest enough to admit that the Parousia never took place in any way recognizable to the people to whom Jesus "returned." I am honest enough to admit that God did not secure the knowledge of the event for the people to whom it happened or for the following generations. Therefore, we can only guess that the return of Jesus Christ" --



(1) wasn't a big deal

(2) wasn't to be personally experienced or remembered by anyone

(3) wasn't a key part of the faith

(4) wasn't to be recorded for later generations to know about

(5) it just never happened at all



"The history of the Parousia is problematic to preterists, futurists, and Christianity. There is no way around it."



I want to applaud Parker for this honest admission. He is not the first to wrestle with this question. I believe J. S. Russell (author of “The Parousia”), Ernest Hampden Cook (editor of the Weymouth Bible translation), and recently Ed Stevens (President of the “International Preterists Association”) have grappled with the issue by coming to the conclusion of a 1st century Rapture. By supposing there was a Rapture, they can assume that the “first rank Christians” were removed from the earth while the “second rank Christians” remained. Now, the so-called “second rank Christians” would supposedly not be as spiritually aware and would instead miss the true nature and impact of the Parousia. Whereas, the Raptured first rank Christian would have completely understood its nature and impact, but they were no longer on earth to tell the tale so it was left up to centuries of second rank Christians who have passed down their confusion from century to century. Thus, their answer to Parker's question.



Now, this article isn’t about the 1st century Rapture theory, so for right now we’ll file the Rapture theory under Parker’s options 2 and 4, but I wanted to go over it to show how some preterists have dealt with Parker's question.



As 21st century Christians we are far removed from what seems like ancient history and thus theological points that are now taken for granted aren’t seen as the almost progressive stepping stones they were. For instance, it may be easy enough to make a theological case for the deity of Christ, or the trinity or justification by faith alone but these widely accepted theological points were not always common. We can look back retrospectively in the texts of the Bible and say, “ah-ha, here is the Deity of Christ!” and “here is the trinity!” and “here is justification by faith alone!” but these things were not always so clearly understood by the Christian community.

As to Parker’s first option, could the same thing be said about the Crucifixion and Resurrection? Those events didn’t seem like big deals to the Jews that just killed Jesus, and definitely not so much to the surrounding Gentiles. The Christians appeared to be just another aberrant Jewish cult. It took many years before it would have a great impact on the world. And according to Roman Catholics, it would be nearly 300+ years before this new “cult” would codify its sacred books (the New Testament). So, why would someone think it so strange that it took another 1700 years for the Christians to catch up with the reality of Christ’s victory? (Though, we can show that throughout history there have been people who have inconsistently understood Christ’s victory)



But perhaps it wasn’t such a “big deal” in the sight of those still confused by a physical mentality. I mean, even in Jesus’ day people were let down by His concepts. They had specific ideas about how the Messiah would come (being preceded by Elijah, conquering the Romans, establishing a physical kingdom), yet Jesus didn’t seem to live up to their expectations. (I submit He surpassed them)



His own disciples seemed to misunderstand Him even after 3.5 years with Him. They asked Him in Acts 1:6 if He was going to now “restore the kingdom to Israel”. Was that ever the plan?



For those expecting fireworks, the transition between the Old and New Covenant seemed to pass rather quietly (if you don’t consider the destruction of God’s typological & geographical symbols – Jerusalem & the Temple as being significant). – So, looking at it that way, maybe it was no big deal.

Next, Parker’s option 2 is much like option 1, that is if it was no big deal no one would really experience it. They would simply seem to pass from life to life in the twinkling of an eye – Hmmm, something to consider when thinking about those verses. Consider your own conversion. Did you see a remarkable change in an instant or did it take a while for it to sink in as to what actually happened to you (being made alive)?

As for option 3 we can easily agree, that at different junctures in Christian history various elements have been more of less “key to faith”. For example, there have been eras where ecclesiastical concerns were thought important. At other times it was important to have all of your soteriological ducks in a row. It was even once a “big deal” as to if you were “baptized correctly” with the correct method of dunking or sprinkling (depending upon your view) and performed by the correct clergy. So, perhaps in this time, eschatological understanding will be “key to our faith” (not so much in the salvific sense but in the relationship with Christ sense).

Option 4 leads the reader to believe there is not much record of the Parousia. Well, it has already been admitted by Parker that we can make a theological (biblical) case for the Parousia at least as an imminent expectation of the 1st century Christians. But we might wonder why right after the Fall of Jerusalem and the Destruction of the Temple we don’t see scores of Christian writers touting those events as proof that Christ was successful and had indeed returned. Would it undermine the faith, validity of the Bible and Sovereignty of God to say the 1st century Christians really didn’t quite understand how these things did really impact Christianity? Were they supposed to suddenly understand everything? Did it undermine the validity of Jesus’ message when the Pharisees and Scribes rejected Him because He didn’t fit their template? (No prophet comes out of Galilee -- John 7:52 or The Messiah will be the [phyiscal] son of David -- Mt 22:42-44) Did it undermine His Kingdom because He seemed to fail to make those people... His very own people understand that HE was the fulfillment of everything they had been reading and doing for thousands of years? This is what the dispensationalists claim, so much so that they say since the Jews failed to accept Jesus as their King, He had to resort to plan B and start the “church”, postpone the kingdom and will at a later time restore the kingdom (as in Acts 1:6) and even the Temple and its rudimentary sacrifices. Is this what we are to believe?



Rather, the Bible itself screams a 1st century fulfillment. History (especially historians like Josephus & Tacitus) unwittingly testify to the fulfillment of these things. Yes, people in general are often unwitting participants in fulfillment of things to which they are unaware of the impact. Perhaps this is what has been happening in history.

This option is the most depressing of them all. If we admit the Bible seems clear about the imminent expectation of the Parousia, and then we say it never happened at all we shall become either confused futurists who twist clear time texts to fit a convoluted paradigm, or we might throw our hands up and become agnostics, or worse atheists.



Instead, I choose to believe that the plan of God continues to unfold. It is like the sails of a ship the moment they are caught by the wind, they come to life but it doesn’t end there – the journey just begins as the vessel moves forward. Far from a deists concept that God brought us to the consummation then dropped out of the scene, instead history is exciting in the now as it is being made. Do I understand all the impacts of it? No. Can I read God’s Word on it? Yes. So the historical realization is often different than the theological realization. History (and our understanding of it) is constantly playing catch up to the theological reality.



Thank you for bringing these important points up Parker.



Standing on the Word of Lord,

Roderick