Apostles view of Christ's imminent return

redhen · #1 Oct 14, '08, 7:15 am

From reading Paul's letters and the sayings of Jesus "..this generation will not pass away.." etc, I conclude, along with many biblical scholars that the early church expected the imminent return of Jesus.

How does this square with His non-return, and what would be the apologetic response to answer this criticism?

Thanks

Verbum · #2 Oct 14, '08, 7:38 am

Hi Red,

The prophetic genre usuallly works on several levels. Thus in the gospels Jesus talks about both the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world, one symbolizing the other. When he talks about "this generation", he obviously is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.

But it is a fact that the first Christians were expecting the 2nd Coming. For both them and the apostles, Jesus was a contemporary. They could not easily envisage his coming back only after thousands of years. And Jesus did say, "I will come like a thief in the night" - unannounced.

Verbum

mrs_abbott · #3 Oct 14, '08, 7:48 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhen

How does this square with His non-return, and what would be the apologetic response to answer this criticism?

Thanks

The fact that He still has yet to come. Be on guard!

redhen · #4 Oct 14, '08, 8:39 am

I found a similar thread from April 2008, but it quickly devolved into a rapture discussion with no answer to the mistaken belief in an imminent return in the early church.

So I will re-word my question.

In regards the delayed parousia, how could the apostles and early church have gotten something so important so wrong?

And given this huge mistake, how can we be certain that they didn't make other mistakes in their interpretations?

davidv · #5 Oct 14, '08, 8:56 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhen

I found a similar thread from April 2008, but it quickly devolved into a rapture discussion with no answer to the mistaken belief in an imminent return in the early church.

So I will re-word my question.

In regards the delayed parousia, how could the apostles and early church have gotten something so important so wrong?

Why was it wrong? Were they not living as Christ commanded, as if He were to return "as a thief in the night'?

Quote:

And given this huge mistake, how can we be certain that they didn't make other mistakes in their interpretations?

The "mistake" is not a given. He explictly told them the He did not know the day nor the hour of His return.

redhen · #6 Oct 14, '08, 9:17 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidv

Why was it wrong? Were they not living as Christ commanded, as if He were to return "as a thief in the night'?

The "mistake" is not a given. He explictly told them the He did not know the day nor the hour of His return.

But biblical scholars contend that the early church expected an imminent return.

Tertullian in Ch 21 of his Apology, written circa 200 AD says:

"For two comings of Christ having been revealed to us: a first, which has been fulfilled in the lowliness of a human lot; a second, which impends over the world, now near its close"

http://web.archive.org/web/200705211...tullian01.html

It seems the early church fathers got this plain wrong.

CatsAndDogs · #7 Oct 14, '08, 9:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhen

I found a similar thread from April 2008, but it quickly devolved into a rapture discussion with no answer to the mistaken belief in an imminent return in the early church.

So I will re-word my question.

In regards the delayed parousia, how could the apostles and early church have gotten something so important so wrong?

He didn't get it wrong. The "generation" referred to is humanity in the time of the Church.

He may have thought he was talking about "those alive" during his time, but the Holy Spirit never allows the divinely inspired authors to "mess up".

Quote:

And given this huge mistake, how can we be certain that they didn't make other mistakes in their interpretations?

Since it wasn't a mistake, and since it's dogma that the inspired writings (scripture) simply CAN'T be wrong, your question is nonsensical, though understandable if one hasn't been catechized particularly well.

CatsAndDogs · #8 Oct 14, '08, 9:46 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhen

Tertullian in Ch 21 of his Apology, written circa 200 AD says:

"For two comings of Christ having been revealed to us: a first, which has been fulfilled in the lowliness of a human lot; a second, which impends over the world, now near its close"

The world has been "near it's close" since Christ died and rose.

We have been in the "end times" since then.

The length of the "end times" is not for us to worry about. We are just to know that ANY time could be the actual end, and be prepared for it (be maximally free of sin).

20,000 years is a short time considering the event referred to, isn't it?

SimonArizona · #9 Oct 14, '08, 10:00 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhen

From reading Paul's letters and the sayings of Jesus "..this generation will not pass away.." etc, I conclude, along with many biblical scholars that the early church expected the imminent return of Jesus.

How does this square with His non-return, and what would be the apologetic response to answer this criticism?

Thanks

This generation I believe refers to the future generation that Christ is talking about. The one that will see Israel become its own nation again, and will see great calamities, great wars, but the end is not yet.

In Matthew 24 Jesus gives a long list of signs of His coming, this couldn't possibly happen in one mans lifetime.

Look at what generation means in this context.

This generation who sees great wars and Israel become its own nation again (1948), sees great false prophets, shall not pass until all things are fulfilled.

tm30 · #10 Oct 14, '08, 10:07 am

Quote:

From reading Paul's letters and the sayings of Jesus "..this generation will not pass away.." etc, I conclude, along with many biblical scholars that the early church expected the imminent return of Jesus.

How does this square with His non-return, and what would be the apologetic response to answer this criticism?

Thanks

Measuring time in biblical terms is futile. What is "soon"? What is "delayed"? What is a "generation"?

Quote:

Psalms 89:4

"For a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past. And as a watch in the night,"

Quote:

2 Peter 3

"But of this one thing be not ignorant, my beloved, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

That Paul expected the imminent return of Jesus may be a fact, but we cannot take his personal interpretation of the signs of the times as a revelation of the Holy Spirit. Paul was very clear in pointing out that no one really knows when or where it will happen, but he was encouraging the faithful to live as if it were a fait accompli. In fact, we are all commanded to live as if His return is imminent.

But Paul's ruminations, in and of themselves, are not infallible -- especially given that we cannot be certain that Paul was referring to time in the earthly sense, or time from the POV of God, who lives in eternity.

SimonArizona · #11 Oct 14, '08, 10:21 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs

The world has been "near it's close" since Christ died and rose.

We have been in the "end times" since then.

The length of the "end times" is not for us to worry about. We are just to know that ANY time could be the actual end, and be prepared for it (be maximally free of sin).

20,000 years is a short time considering the event referred to, isn't it?

Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

SimonArizona · #12 Oct 14, '08, 10:22 am

Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh:

Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.

Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Verbum · #13 Oct 14, '08, 2:30 pm

Hi Redhen,

In regards the delayed parousia, how could the apostles and early church have gotten something so important so wrong?

They were not wrong. They were ready. We should be too.

Verbum

**Tantum ergo** · #14 Oct 14, '08, 2:45 pm

Just in case (and I'm not saying this in an accusatory way) people have not checked the OP's profile, he is an agnostic. Therefore we need to be very sure we do two things:

1. Treat him with the utmost Christian charity possible. Of course we should be trying to do that anyway, but it is even more important to witness to somebody 'outside the Faith' by teaching the Faith both by words and by actions.

2. Do not assume that the OP 'already knows' Catholicism as it truly is. While he is probably highly educated, and may indeed have a lot of 'book knowledge' of Christianity especially as presented by supposedly impartial historians or worse, partial and prejudiced exponents on 'both sides' (pro and anti-Christian), as an agnostic he does not have that type of knowledge that one can only have with 'practice'. It is the difference between knowing (through books and study) about a newborn baby--knowing his development stages, nutrition requirements, all about how to 'raise the child' and actually having a child and raising the child.

The book knowledge etc. usually (not always) enhances one's ability when one actually does have the child. But one need not have 'extensive' book study to raise a child properly. And the wrong kind of study can be detrimental.

So we need to be aware the OP does not share the 'practical experience' of Christianity lived to its fullest right now (he may have been raised in Christianity and have some practical knowledge, but--to stick to the example-- I raised my babies years ago. Despite much practical knowledge I would still need a 'bit' of a refresher were I suddenly confronted with raising a newborn again.) At the same time, he also has probably accumulated a lot of knowledge that can be valuable to us though not in the way he might think it would be. Knowing the 'reasons' that people give for not following Christianity can help us ultimately (we hope) to (with God's help) see how we can bring God to these people without setting their backs further AGAINST Christianity because they perceive the Faith as being irrational or intellectually lacking. And of course, calmness, reason, and the example of true Christian love and witness are our best tools in any kind of exchange.

redhen · #15 Oct 14, '08, 6:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Verbum

Hi Redhen,

In regards the delayed parousia, how could the apostles and early church have gotten something so important so wrong?

They were not wrong. They were ready. We should be too.

Verbum

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/1jo002.htm

18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mar008.htm

39 And he said to them: Amen I say to you that there are some of them that stand here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God coming in power.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/mat016.htm

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. 28 Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk009.htm

27 But I tell you of a truth: There are some standing here that shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.

To me this sounds like an imminent return.