The Second Coming

[PJD1987]

Hello,

Matthew 10:23 says, “you will not have gone through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes,” seemingly implying His Second Coming in the lifetime of the Apostles. The Priest I’m doing this Bible Study with also stated that in the Letters of St. Paul we see a progression in his excuberence over the return of Christ, at first being uplifting and encouraging to those he’s writing to, and then seeing less and less of this as his letters go on. The Priest says we see St. Paul wrestling with the idea, and that it is very clear the early Christian communities definitely believed in a Second Coming during their lifetime.

A few questions come to mind, 1. Why did Jesus lead his followers to believe that He would return during their lifetime if that was not the actual plan? 2. What does this mean that Jesus would leave His Apostles with incomplete knowledge when He previously says that “Knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven has been granted to you,” (Mt. 13:11)? What knowledge was granted to them if they still did not understand? Also Jesus says in John 15:15 “I have told you everything I have heard from my Father,” really? How is that possible, if they were told everything, why do they not know that the 2nd coming wouldn’t be for another 2,000+ years? Seems like kind of a large omission, why would Jesus allow His most trusted, chosen Apostles be mislead, and mislead others, and misunderstand such a crucial point? And more practically…I know “Gods ways aren’t ours, and a day to God is like a thousand years, and its a mystery and we’re not supposed to understand…” But practically speaking, why would Jesus wait over 2,000 years when He knows how we think and knows that it wouldn’t make much sense to us?

Do these things bother anyone else? It just seems like, despite saying that the Apostles knew it all and entrusting the care of souls to them, that at the very least He held some things back. If the Apostles could have been wrong about such a central theme of our faith, does this not put everything else into question?

These things have always bothered me and made me uncomfortable… anyone have any thoughts on the matter?

God bless,
Paul

 

[Heuchler]

Well first, Christ himself did not even claim to know when the second coming was and said that only the Father knew. And no matter what, Christ would have left it ambiguos because He wants us to be prepared for Him as the second coming is meant to be as a thief in the night.

 

[PJD1987]

Thank you for your thoughts. Even so, however, one is left only to surmise that Christ gave his Apostles false hope in His imminent return. That doesn’t seem like something He would do…something just doesn’t fit.

God bless,
Paul

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Thank you for your thoughts. Even so, however, one is left only to surmise that Christ gave his Apostles false hope in His imminent return. That doesn’t seem like something He would do…something just doesn’t fit.

God bless,
Paul

You’re right. We often come across this “Jesus didn’t know”. The higher truth is seemingly that our Lord was speaking in His humanity as not being authorized to tell and at the highest level of truth which is in God, Jesus did not “know” to tell. Jesus always being God, God being One, and Jesus not lying are truths we must not set aside to make everything fit a rational understanding.

The thing the apostles did not have was divine understanding, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit. It is given in measure as a gift and not as a principle in fullness at the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is this measure that increases the Church’s understanding to make dogmatic revelations such as the Assumption.

I recall somewhere that at some level the return of Jesus was in the Eucharist. Not the coming “in Glory” but perhaps one facet of His return. I only recall seeing this mentioned once, a while back. Could this be a “return”?

 

[NHInsider]

It is true that the same word, “parousia” is used both for the Second Coming and for the Real Presence.

It is also apparent that the apostles believed that Jesus was going to return to establish the Messianic Kingdom during their lifetimes. I think it is legitimate to say that Jesus in His humanity may well have shared this belief. I also think it is legitimate to observe that in the overall arc of history the time since the Ascension is still short - and of course, as Paul wrote, the Day is nearer than when we first believed.

Pedagogically, if humanity had known that the end was going to be at thus-and-such a time, wouldn’t the natural tendency have been to say “I’ll get right with the Lord before then, but in the mean time I have some serious partying/wealth accumulation/revenge-taking to do?”

2 Peter 3:9 casts this question in the terms of God’s heart - “The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.” What looks to us (and to them) like delay is His mercy.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

The verse only becomes problematic if you interpret the verse to mean that Jesus is referring to the Second Coming. Since that clearly did not happen at the time the Apostles were proclaiming the Gospel then we must assume that Jesus was speaking of something else, not that He is giving false information or false hope to the Apostles. The commentaries I’ve consulted are unanimous in the interpretation that Jesus was referring to a time of His visitation upon Isreal–not the Second Coming at which the whole world would be judged. The word parousia can mean “presence” or “visitation” according to the Ignatius bible commentary. The Navarre, Ignatius and Jerusalem bible commentaries all point to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem as the event that Jesus is speaking of. From the Jerusalem bible (1966) : The coming which is here foretold is not concerned with the world at large with with Israel: it took place at the moment when God “visited” His now faithless people and brought the OT era to an end by the destruction of its Temple in 71AD." The commentary also points to Mt 24:1.

From the Navarre Study Bible: In interpreting this text, the first thing is to reject the view of rationalists who argue that Jesus was convinced that soon He would come in glory and the world would come to an end. That interpretation is clearly at odds with many passages of the Gospel and New Testament. Clearly, Jesus reforest to Himself when He speaks of the “Son of Man” whose glory will be manifested in this way. The most cogent interpretation is that Jesus is referring here, primarily, to the historical event of the first Jewish war against Rome, which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple in the year 70, and which led to the scattering of the Jewish people. But this event, which would occur a few years after Jesus’ death, is an image or prophetic symbol of the end of the world (cf Mt 24:1) The coming of Christ in glory will happen at a time which God has not revealed. Uncertainty about the end of the world helps Christians and the Church to be ever-vigilant.

Still, these are just commentaries so just take them for what they are worth. It is also possible that Jesus is speaking of the Eucharist to some extent or the presence of the Holy Spirit. While we cannot be 100% certain of what visitation Jesus was referring to, we can be certain that it was not the Second Coming at the end of the world. Why? Because Jesus would never have given a false prophecy. Since the Second Coming did not occur, we must conclude that He was speaking of something else.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Some will not taste death, till they see the kingdom of heaven. Peter, James and John saw the Transfiguration, which means they saw God’s kingdom, is what I think. Mary, also was assumed into heaven.

 

[PJD1987]

The verse only becomes problematic if you interpret the verse to mean that Jesus is referring to the Second Coming.

Firstly, thank you for your thoughts.

Yes, if you interpret it that way, it is problematic, but even if you don’t interpret it that way, it is problematic. Why was Jesus so cryptic? Why wouldn’t He have made sure His established Church actually knew what He was talking about before He departed for the next 2 millenia? It still bothers me that He would not have revealed to them what He meant and left them with a false hope…He knew their thoughts, and knew how they’d think and interpret what He was saying…maybe He needed them to think that way to bring about such a strong conversion to firmly establish the Church rather than have it be one of many Messianic cults that grew in that era? I don’t know, just thinking out loud…a lot just doesn’t make sense.

God bless,
Paul

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

We need humility more than we require information.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Firstly, thank you for your thoughts.

Yes, if you interpret it that way, it is problematic, but even if you don’t interpret it that way, it is problematic. Why was Jesus so cryptic? Why wouldn’t He have made sure His established Church actually knew what He was talking about before He departed for the next 2 millenia? It still bothers me that He would not have revealed to them what He meant and left them with a false hope…He knew their thoughts, and knew how they’d think and interpret what He was saying…maybe He needed them to think that way to bring about such a strong conversion to firmly establish the Church rather than have it be one of many Messianic cults that grew in that era? I don’t know, just thinking out loud…a lot just doesn’t make sense.

God bless,
Paul

I totally understand where you are coming from, but first of all remember where that scripture lies in the whole story that Matthew is telling and how it lines up with the other scriptures about His coming again. The Apostles didn’t even really understand that there would be a second coming at that point in time. Up to that point, Jesus had just been proclaiming the Gospel and had just arrived at the point where He was commissioning them to go forth in authority and warning them of the persecutions to come. I don’t think they would have been confused or have false hope because they didn’t even know what the plan was as far as Jesus dying and rising again. As far as I know, the first prophecy of the Passion is given in Mt 16:21. So, at the point He made that statement I don’t think they were thinking “second coming” at all. In John 16, right before His arrest, He also talks about returning very soon, but that seems to be in terms of His resurrection and sending the Advocate. He specifically says He is speaking in metaphors and says that He has many things He wants to say to them but it would be too much for them now. I think this is because they did not have the Holy Spirit yet, but when they had the Holy Spirit He would guide them to all truth. Part of that simple truth is that only God knows the time of the return of Jesus. I’m not sure they were concerned with the timing of the return, only that they had a mission to proclaim the gospel message to all who would receive it.

Can you imagine if Jesus had been specific? Imagine if He said yes, I’m coming back on October 12, 2011. Christians everywhere would be going bananas right now. Beyond that, every Christian in the prior centuries would have been faced with the temptation to put off repenting because they didn’t have to worry about Jesus coming in their lifetime. It makes me think that Jesus was wise in being, shall we say, cagey about the timing of the second coming.

 

[PJD1987]

I don’t think they would have been confused or have false hope because they didn’t even know what the plan was as far as Jesus dying and rising again.

Thank you again for your thoughts, I really do appreciate the encouragement at the moment.

I do, however, believe that the Apostles were given false hope, in that they very clearly believed in the imminent return of Christ, as evidenced by the writings of St. Paul and St. John especially. I do agree that not giving an exact date was obviously the best thing to do, but then why say anything at all? Again, just thinking out loud, but I just keep coming back to the same thought, that Jesus kind of left the Apostles up in the air…and the ramifications that has for the entirety of faith is something I’m struggling through right now …so again, I thank you for your thoughts

God bless,
Paul