lished as an institution in the world, and looks forward to a period of continued existence. The Antichrist to be feared is no longer external but internal ; not a hostile power to appear at the end of the ages, but those false teachers who are already working in the Church (1 Jn 2%). It is natural, then, that chief stress should be laid on present communion with Christ—a communion not only real and precious here, but continuing unbroken in the life immediately after death. In such a theology the Parousia is no longer, as with the Synoptics, the centre of interest. Instead of a sudden catastrophe, introducing the disciples into a new order of existence, we have a gradual pro- cess, of which the ‘Last Day’ is only the final consummation. Cf. Holtzmann, Hdcomm ἦν. 177.
We have thus completed our survey of the NT material, and we find that it presents us with two distinct types of thought. To the one, represented most fully in the ‘Apocalypse’ of the Synopties and the earlier Epistles of St. Paul, but present also in most of the other books, the Parousia is conceived after the analogy of the contemporary Jewish Hpocalypees as a great catastrophe, {See ing to a conclusion the present ἘΠΕ: of the universe, and introducing the new age in which alone the Kingdom of God can be realized. To the other, represented most fully in the Fourth Gospel, but having points of contact in Revelation, in such Synoptic passages as Mt 26% 18”, and in the Pauline doctrine of the present union of the be- liever with Christ, the Parousia is rather the com- pletion of an order of things which is already existing, than the beginning of one which is new. The question naturally resents itself as to which of these two types most fairly represents the teach- ing of our Lord? Are we to think of Him (with Holtzmann and others) as sharing the common expectation of the early disciples of a visible ree in glory within the first generation? And does the Fourth Gospel represent the fading out of this early expectation, in view of later experi- ences? Or is the very opposite the truth? And is it the fact (as E. Haupt contends) that the Fourth Gospel presents us with the true eschato- logy of Jesus—a ge which, because of its depth and originality, the disciples were able only gradually to apprehend? It is perhaps not pos- sible to answer this question from a study of the eschatological p: es alone. The view taken must be eeerrinied in part by considerations drawn from Jesus’ teaching as a whole. Here, as elsewhere, our Lord’s doctrine of the Kingdom is fundamental. Those who give the phrase a urely eschatological meaning, and minimize esus’ teaching concerning the present Kingdom (e.g. J. Weiss), will naturally interpret the passages concerning the Parousia after the analogy. of their Jewish parallels. Those, on the other hand, who see in Jesus’ doctrine of the Kingdom something radically new, and who find this newness in His assurance that the Messianic Kingdom is already present in the little company of believers who accept His gospel, will favour a spiritual inter- retation. Faced with a difficulty on either side, it will seem to them easier to account for those passages which are inconsistent with such an interpretation as due to an imperfect apprehen- sion by the disciples of the Master's meaning, than to believe that He, who in all other respects possessed an insight so much clearer than His con- temporaries, should, in the matter of eschatology alone, have had nothing new to contribute.
iv. THE PAROUSIA IN THE LATER CHURCH.— No doctrine was more prominent in the early Church than that of the Parousia. It was the great hope by which the Christians were sup- ported under the persecution and contempt which
580 PAROUSIA
PARTHIANS
were so fr among the Jewish Christians, with whose expecta- tion of a conquering Messiah it was catarelly in accord, but among the Gentile Christians as well. In many cases, as in the Canonical sere bre it in
uently their lot. It meets us not only
is associated with the hope of a Millennia g- dom, preceding the final judgment—a Kingdom conceived now carnally (Papias), now spiritually (Barnabas). See MILLENNIUM. In others, as in most of the NT books, it is associated with the final judgment, and regarded as introducing the world to come. By Marcion and the Gnostics it was rejected as part of the Jewish corrup- tion of the gospel. The Montanists preached a speedy Advent, and looked for the setting up of a Millennial Kingdom at Pepuza. The extrava- gances of their doctrine, together with the grow- ing strength and self-consciousness of the Church, led to a gradual shifting of emphasis to other doctrines. Tertullian, Irenwus, and Hippolytus still look for a speedy Advent; but with the Alexandrine Fathers we enter a new circle of thought. As in the Fourth Gospel, tle Parousia is not denied, but another set of conceptions is placed in the foreground. With Augustine’s identification of the Millennium with the period of the Church militant, the Second Advent is post-
ned to a distant future, and the way prepared or that view of eschatology which has been on the whole controlling ever since.
Into the history of modern interpretation we cannot enter. We may distinguish four different positions, each of which has its advocates—(1) It is possible with Marcion and the Gnostics to re- gard the hope of the Parousia as a remnant of Judaism, useful indeed in supporting the faith of the disciples in the trying ΠΕ of the begin- nings, but without foundation in fact, and so destined to give place in time to a higher and purer set of conceptions. But this involves the assumption of a mistake not only on the part of the apostles, but on that of Jesus Himself, since it seems impossible to deny not only that Jesus pre- dicted His own return, but that this expectation was an important element in His Messianic con- sciousness. (2) It is possible, with Augustine and the majority of theologians since his day, to regard the Parousia as a literal coming on the clouds to judgment, but to postpone this coming to an in- definite future, concentrating attention in the meantime upon the life immediately after death. But this does violence to those passages, both in the apostolic teaching and in that of Jesus, which oe the Parousia within the generation then iving. (3) Itis ible, with Russell, to identify the Parousia with the destruction of Jerusalem, and so to regard it as past. But this is open to the objection that the eat condition of the Church does not correspond to that glorious state to which the NT writers look forward. (4) It is possible, finally, following the suggestion of the Fourth Gospel, to regard the Parousia rather as a dispen- sation than as a single event, beginning with the spiritual Advent by the risen Jesus, and con- tinuing on through all the intermediate experi- ences of the Church until that ‘Last Day’ when the work of salvation shall be fully accomplished, and the kingdoms of the world shall have become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ. See also MAN OF SIN, MILLENNIUM, and PAUL, p. 729 f.