From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 29 1995 - 06:15:07 EDT
At 7:52 PM 8/28/95, Jan.Haugland@uib.no wrote:
>Carl W. Conrad said:
>> I was going just to let this pass but I couldn't. While I agree that the
>> Synoptic gospels all have Jesus-sayings indicating that the "Coming" of the
>> Son of Man will take place within the lifetimes of those hearing Jesus,
>
>YES! Thank you for pointing this out. It's the crucial point, and I will come
>back to this. I believe that the gospels actually reflect true, authentic oral
>statements made by Jesus to the disciples. These statements were well known
>among all Christians even before a single book of the NT was written. The
>underlying Christian faith in the imminent parousia was built on these
>statements, and the earliest books -- the Pauline letters -- simply refer to a
>faith that was already present.
I am less confident that in these passages the gospel do in fact reflect
"true, authentic oral statements made by Jesus to the disciples, but I
grant that the statements are there in each of the three synoptics. There
are some significant differences in the wording of the versions in the
three gospels, but whatever it is that they are to see, in each there is
asserted that "there are some standing here who will not taste death before
they see ..." Nevertheless, these statements, crucial as they may be, do
not by any means constitute the whole teaching of any one of the synoptic
gospels. I think it comes closest to the teaching of Mark's gospel, but I
think there are clear indications of a "delayed Parousia" in Matthew and
Luke.
>> think it is a gross overstatement to say that this is the teaching of "the
>> whole NT,"
>
>It is of course a subjective statement with a certain lack of precision, but I
>stand by it.
>
>We have the synoptics stating this clearly. We agree so far.
You overstate the point of agreement, as I have already indicated.
>The Gospel of John has the same message, in places like Jn16:16: "A little
>while, and you will see me no more; again a little while, and you will see me."
>In Jn21:22 we also find that based on Jesus statements, the discipled had
>(mistakenly) assumed that Jesus had *guaranteed* that John would live to see
>the parousia. John corrects this, but this is evidence that they expected the
>coming within one generation.
My own reading of the gospel of John is that the Parousia of Jesus is
presented as occurring fundamentally on the day of Easter,and that this is
the dominant eschatology of John's gospel,but there are some passages in
John that seem to point to a more distant futuristic consummation also.
>In Acts 2:16, Peter states that they were living *in the last days.* Later, in
>Acts 17:31, we see most translations say merely that Jesus "will judge" the
>world (oikomene). "He will judge" is "mellei krinein," and the Greek experts
>here should have no difficulty observing that there is a shade of urgency
>here:
>"he is about to judge," or "will soon judge."
I'd say that in this passage in Acts (2) we have reference to early church
teaching that in the death and resurrection of Jesus the Age-to-come has
begun but that it runs and will continue to run simultaneously with the
present World-Age until a future Parousia at some indefinite point. There
can be no doubt that in the early church this was thought to be in the
reasonably near future.
I won't try to argue the case about Paul. It is quite evident that he looks
forward to an early return of Jesus. I would say, however, that if (as I
think) Romans is his most mature letter, his statement at the end of
chapter 8 is less bound to an eschatological timetable such as that offered
in 1 Cor 15 and is couched more in simple confidence in God's power to
consummate his promises to believers.
>I don't have to use more arguments to show that the epistles of Paul has the
>*imminent* Parousia all over. The battle cry for the Christian, persecuted and
>suffering under the evil of this world, was "The Lord is at hand." (Php4:5)
>
>I should hardly need to point out the obvious fact that in no language spoken
>by men, can an expression like this -- "at hand" -- indicate a period of 1900
>years or more.
I don't dispute this.
>> and I think there is considerable evidence indicating that in
>> Matthew and Luke the "Coming" is conceived as distanced from the
>> destruction of the temple and Jerusalem by an indefinite period of time,
>> one that in Luke appears to be rather lengthy, in fact.
>
>You will have to point this out, for I have in a quite careful examination of
>these accounts come to the opposite conclusion.
The text in Luke I had in mind specifically is 21:20-24. It begins with a
sketch of Jerusalem under siege which to my mind is a vaticinium ex eventu
if there ever was one, though I realize not everyone will agree. I think
21:20 is an indication that Luke was written AFTER the destruction of
Jersualem. 21:24 speaks of the prisoners of war taken from Jerusalem and
then says that Jerusalem ESTAI PATOUMENH hUPO EQNWN, AXRI hOU PLHWQWSIN
KAIROI EQNWN. It is this last phrase in particular that makes me think that
Luke implies an extensive period of Gentile domination of Jerusalem before
the Parousia, which Luke's Jesus goes on to describe in the next verses.
>> So could you explain, please, what you mean by saying that 'The whole NT is
>> emphasising that the second coming would occur within the lifespan of those
>> people he were talking to. The disciples asked Jesus when the "end of the
>> age" would be. Jesus explained, and it all came to pass in 70AD?'
>
>I think I have done this, and you should find further examples in the epistles
>of John, Jude and Peter (authentic or not). The fact that I am missing some
>books in my list above is not lack of examples, but that I don't want this
>article to be too long. Let me simply conclude by referring to the Revelation
>of John, which I am certain was a message about the forthcoming destruction of
>Jerusalem:
>
> Rev 22:20 "He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming
> soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!"
Well, some will agree on the dating of the Apocalypse. I'm not so sure. But
with regard to the other letters, I thought it was commonly held that 2
Peter makes its primary message that although the Parousia has not yet
occurred, it surely will at a time of the Lord's choosing.
We apparently read some of these texts in the same way, but differ quite
radically in the interpretation of several others. I think probably we
ought to stick to the elucidation of particular texts rather than attempt
to characterize the eschatology of the NT as a whole. The most meaningful
summation on that matter that I've ever heard is that the NT as a whole is
permeated with a conviction that in some way the New Age has indeed already
begun, but that in many important ways it awaits a future consummation yet.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:26 EDT