PAROUSIA
final Advent at the end of the age (Rev 2° 16 331; cf. also Mt 26% ‘ Henceforth [ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι] ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven,’ which Meyer interprets in the sense of a continual historical revelation of Christ’s power and triumph); and, finally, (5) an Advent at the end of the age (Mt 24°) to judge the world, to destroy evil, to reward the saints, and to establish the Kingdom of Glory. While it is with the last of these that we are primarily concerned in the doctrine of the Parousia, it is impossible wholly to ignore the others. The sharp line of distinction which later theology has drawn between the final Advent and these pre- limi advents is not always observed in the NT. There are ges, like Mt 26%, where the coming of Christ in glory is represented as a con- tinuous process. There are others, like those in the Fourth Gospel (e.g. Jn 14% 16"), in which the spiritual advent by the Paraclete takes the place
where filled by the final Advent. It is im- portant, therefore, while clearly recognizing the technical meaning of the phrase, not to interpret our theme too narrowly.
The doctrine of the Parousia is a New Testa- ment doctrine. It had its origin in Jesus’ prophecy of His own return, and depends for its existence upon the maine position which He holds in Chris- tian faith. evertheless, it is not without pre-
ration in the past. It has its parallel within
he OT in the prophetic anticipation of the Day of the Lord (6... Am 5'8, Is 213 13%, 1] 116 2}, Zeph 38), —that t crisis of human history when J” shall be manifested as the Judye and Saviour of Israel, and His Kingdom shall be set up among men (see ESCHATOLOGY in vol. i. p. 735f.). Many features in the NT doctrine are anticipated in OT. Thus the warlike imagery of Rev 19" finds parallels in Is 13¢ 345, Jer 46!° etc. The connexion of the resurrection of the dead with the deliverance and judgment of the living is made in Dn 12!%. The great convulsions of 2 P 310 have their anticipation In Is 344, The signs in the heaven predicted in Mt 24” and parallels are foretold in Is 13%, J] 316. 16 etc. The renewal of nature prophesied in Is 657 rea in Rev 21! (cf. Ro 8", 1 Co 73). Most striking is the parallel in Dn 7'**, where the seer has a vision of one like unto a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven to receive ‘dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.’ further preparation for the doctrine of the Parousia is to be found in the revived Messianic expectation which characterized the period im- mediately before Christ, and which has left its traces in the Solan \poraty Apocalyptic literature. This literature prepared the way for our doctrine, partly by intensifying the sense of an impending crisis, partly by identifying that crisis, as was not always the case in the OT, with the coming and activity of the Messiah. It is true that in some of the Apocalyptic books there is no mention of a per- sonal Mosel: But in others, and these among the most important (6.0. Ps.-Sol, Eth. Enoch, Baruch, 4 Ezra), the Messiah holds a prominent place. The material is so fully presented by Charles in the article on the ESCHATOLOGY OF THE ΑΡΟσ- RYPHA AND APOCALYPTICAL LITERATURE in vol. i. p. 741 ff., that it is unnecessary to enter into it here. Suffice it to say that the climax is reached in the great passage in the Eth. Enoch (c. 48 ff.), in which the Son of Man is revealed upon the throne of His glory as the righteous judge both of the living and of the dead. This assage, Which in many ways reminds us of Dn i is the closest parallel, outside the NT, to the
great judgment scene in Mt 24°, The points of contact thus briefly indicated
PAROUSIA
suggest an interesting question. Are we to con- ceive the doctrine of the Parousia as simply the continuation on Christian soil of the contemporary Jewish expectation? Or does it stand for some- thing new and distinct? Did Jesus and the apostles understand the OT prophecies in sub- stantially the same sense in which they were understood by the Jews of their day, with this difference only, that the Messiah of whe identity the latter were ignorant was known by them to be Jesus? Or did they ave to these prophecies, as we know that our Lord gave to the law (Mt 5-7), a deeper and more spiritual interpretation? And if the latter, was this equally true of them all, or must we distinguish within the NT between the teaching of the Master and the more or less im- perfect apprehension of the disciples? These are
uestions of the highest importance, not merely for the understanding of the teaching of Jesus, but of Christianity iteelf.
The answer to these questions is by no means easy. No part of the biblical material is more difficult to interpret than the eschatological sages. This is true not merely of the Bk. of Revelation,—admittedly the most obscure portion of the NT,—but of the Apocalyptic portions of the Synoptic Gospels as well. Scholes are not agreed how far the language of these passages is to be taken lverally, how far symbolically. Moreover, there are critical questions of great intricacy con- nected with the present condition of the text. There are some (like Haupt) who, while admitting that all the eschatological discourses in the Synopties are composed of genuine sayings of Jesus, maintain that these sayings are not always given by the evangelists in their original connexion. here are others (Wendt, Weillenbach, etc.) who hold that in their present form these discourses include foreign elements, the teaching of Jesus having been combined by the evangelists with materials drawn either from Jewish or Jewish - Christian sources. Under the circumstances, a thorough dis- cussion of the critical question would seem to be a necessary prerequisite to an adequate treatment of the doctrine.