The Error of the Greek Church, which persists today
in the Gentile Churches!
Timothy James
The belief in the failure of Christ’s prophecies stem from
the attempts of a Gentile-dominated church after A.D. 70
trying to understand Jewish concepts. This lack of
understanding should not amaze us, for most of the Jewish
world misunderstood the prophecies of His first coming,
so why should we expect any difference in recognition
of His second coming by Gentile interpreters?
If any literature was written by them after the fall of
Jerusalem that taught the return of Christ in that event,
there is good reason to believe that it was suppressed or
beyond the understanding of the dominant Gentile church.
Careful study of Rabbinic sources shows that the remnant
of the Jewish nation actively destroyed all apocalyptic
works speaking of an imminent end after A.D. 70 because
of its embarrassment to them. Hence, suppression of
Jewish/Christian material referring to fulfilled imminence
was a most likely target of this group also.
Another factor related to this is N. B. Stonehouse’s mention
of a definite division in the church after A.D. 70. Syrian
Christianity was isolated from the Greek world because of
its Aramaic language. This barrier caused a more pure line
of understanding and tradition. Therefore, the Greek church
considered the Syrian church "heretical" because they
rejected the Greek’s sensual chiliasm and held to a
spiritual/figurative understanding of Jewish/Christian
apocalyptic.
This distaste for sensual chiliasm was a major factor in
their total rejection of the Apocalypse in the early Syrian
texts and canon.
It wasn’t till later that Revelation was added, and then
with a heading that placed its date in reign of Nero,
before the A.D. 70 event.
Interpretation of Scripture by the Gentile-dominated church
was caught up in the idea of a physical return and a literal
interpretation of the very figurative Jewish apocalyptic
language found in the book of Revelation and other OT
& NT prophecies.
Yet, even in the early church, Christ’s return was seen
by the Jewish Christians to be a spiritual change in
the authority of the Kingdom. Such can be seen in
the "jumping the gun" of the early church in the teaching
that the Lord had come before A.D. 70, (II Thess. 2:1-2).
This premature teaching was dangerous to the early church
since it implied an acceptance of the Temple cultus, thus
putting Christianity in the category of just a new sect of
Judaism, rather than the fulfillment of the whole thing.
The fact that they believed the Lord had come before A.D. 70
shows that they interpreted His return as a spiritual coming
in the early church. Even though they were premature,
it only supports our early research that they expected
His return just as He said, in that generation.
There are only two main verses that have loosely been used
to assume a physical return of Christ by the Greek-dominated
church.
The first is Acts 1:9-11 (the Ascension), "he was taken up;
and a cloud received him out of their sight". After this
the two angels reassured the disciples saying, "this same
Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so
come in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven"
(emphasis mine, tj).
The emphasis here is not on the transfigured form, but on
the manner in which he ascended and would return, "in a
cloud". This event was a reaffirmation of Jesus’ being the
apocalyptic "Son of Man" spoken of in Daniel and the
Gospels. That he, "the Son of Man", came with the clouds
of heaven (Daniel 7:13), is later emphatically stated to be
fulfilled in His return, in numerous places (Matt.16:27f;
24:30; Mark 13:26; and Luke 21:27).
The second verse under consideration is Revelation 1:7.
"Behold, he cometh in the clouds and every eye shall see
him, every one which pierced him: and all the kindred
of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.".
Here one finds the same apocalyptic "Son of Man" imagery
regarding His "coming in the clouds". The language of
the text shows that literally, those that would see him
were even who had "pierced him", namely the Jews
(Acts 2:23,36; 5:30).
In His parousia in judgment on the Jewish theocracy,
those that had rejected Him would now "see" the truth
of Jesus’ claims and their error, i.e. a nationalistic
expectation of the Kingdom (Matthew 26:64).
Truly, upon a close investigation of the subject, there are
not any verses in the New Testament that point to any other
manner of coming other than a spiritual parousia of Christ
in a judgment of God’s enemies at the redemptive-historical
end-time of the Old Covenant system.
In fulfilling this event, the bondage of the non-occurence
theory is vanquished.
(Chapter 13 of his book, "THE MESSIAH’S RETURN, Delayed?
Fulfilled? Or Double-Fulfillment?)
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/t/theory_parousia-delay.html
--
O
/
/
<><[]()X()[]><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>><>
\
\
O
"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful
as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When
faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered,
neither love nor patience are in order... For
a defective life does not destroy Christendom,
but exercises it. However, defective doctrine
and false faith ruin everything. Therefore, when
these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy
are in order, but only anger, dispute and
destruction - to be sure, only with the Word
of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther
.
|
