THE
CROSS AND THE PAROUSIA OF CHRIST
by Max R. King
PREFACE
The cross and the parousia of Christ are in biblical
eschatology what alpha and omega are in the Greek alphabet
– the beginning and the end. Our primary aim in this volume, as
indicated by the title, is to show that Christ’s cross and parousia
(i.e., His presence or arrival commonly call the second
coming) are the two foci of one complete, indivisible eschaton (end
time) that pertain to the fulfillment of all redemptive history and
prophecy within the closing period ("the last days") of the
Old Testament aeon (age).
The cross has been recognized generally as an eschatological event
that forms the turning point between the two covenantal aeons – the
Old and New Testaments or the Jewish and Christian ages. However, what
has not received adequate attention (which in our opinion is the very
root of eschatological disparity and dissension throughout the history
of Christianity and of recent years in particular) is the total range of
the cross-determined eschaton that unquestionably takes in the
age-consummating parousia of Christ. The longstanding, traditional
concept has been that the Old Covenant aeon, in all of its variegated
projections of "things to come," was fully consummated
within the cross/Pentecost time frame. This has been a key factor in an
unbiblical dichotomizing of the one cross/parousia eschaton to
the effect that the Christian age arbitrarily is inserted between these
two complementary, age-changing events.
When the cross and Christ’s parousia are thus separated and
assigned to different end-time periods, they become counteractive rather
than coactive in their salvific design. The age that Christ died to
establish (the Christian age) becomes the age that He must return to
bring to an end. Not only does this undermine the saving efficacy of the
cross, but it makes temporal what is declared to be everlasting
– the New Covenant age (Heb. 13:20).
More problematic is the urgency, the imminency or nearness factor in
New Testament expectation concerning Christ’s age-consummating
parousia. Believers of apostolic time were exhorted to watch and to wait
for Christ’s coming (1 Thess. 1:10;5:6) in view of the nearness of the
end (1 Pet. 4:7) and the approaching day of the Lord (Heb. 10:25,37). We
believe that it is neither logical nor biblical for the preparatory Old
Covenant aeon (which lasted fifteen centuries) to give birth, through
the cross event, to the promised New Covenant aeon ("the age to
come"), only for it to become necessary for believers immediately
to begin watching and waiting for that which Christ died to establish to
come to an end at any moment! This kind of eschatological
existence/expectation does not dovetail with the better (Heb. 8:6) and
more lasting work of God through Christ – a new covenantal creation
that fulfills His eternal purpose (Eph. 3:9,21).
It might be argued by 20th century man that the New
Covenant aeon already has exceeded the time frame of the preparatory Old
Covenant aeon by five centuries, therefore the end may come at any
moment. Even if five hundred years could mean the difference
between what is temporal and what is eternal (which would
be a foolish assumption), the fact remains that believers in apostolic
times were the ones instructed to watch and wait for Christ’s
age-changing parousia. If that parousia were tied to the end of the
Christian age as commonly assumed, it is apparent that these saints were
instructed to watch and wait for the end of that which has not yet
reached maturity. They were waiting for Christ to return and conclude
the age that He died to establish even before the full end of the
former, preparatory age (the Jewish age) had been reached in the A.D. 70
consummation.
In light of Scripture, it does not make good sense for the
post-Pentecost of pre-end-of-the-age saints to be waiting for two
simultaneous age-consummating comings of Christ – one with reference
to the consummation of the Jewish age (Mt. 24:3) and one with reference
to an alleged end of the Christian age. Is it conceivable that the
latter coming was a possibility before the occurrence of the A.D. 70
coming; that the end of the better and more lasting
New Covenant aeon might have come even before the preparatory Old
Covenant aeon was consummated? If not, then how can one account for the
fact that post-Pentecost saints were instructed to watch and wait for
Christ’s final coming after His ascension rather than
after the fall of Jerusalem? Why watch and wait for two comings
when one of them could not possibly have occurred until after the other
one? Furthermore, if, as it is claimed, the two comings of Christ are
separated by an entire age (especially by an age that represents the
fulfillment of God’s eternal purpose in Christ), how could the final
coming at the end of the Christian age possibly follow in close sequence
Christ’s coming in the consummation of the Jewish age? Again we point
out that it is easy for 20th century man to place an entire
age between two alleged age-ending comings of Christ since two thousand
years now stand between us and the end of the Jewish age, but this was
not the case in apostolic time. In that time frame, even before the age
to stand between two comings of Christ. How, then, could the
saints of that day be watching and waiting for a soon coming of
Christ to consummate what had not been in existence long enough to
qualify as a short age, much less an everlasting age that
had been anticipated by historical Israel for fifteen hundred years?
When the Old Testament background for the New Testament’s
eschatological message is taken into consideration, it is apparent that
the gospel’s futurism concerning the last things tied to Christ’s
parousia cannot exegetically be extended beyond the consummation of the
Jewish age. This clearly is set forth by Christ in His Olivet Discourse,
as recorded by Matthew (ch.24), Mark (ch.13), Luke (chs. 17,21), and, in
a parallel but more extensive apocalyptic fashion, by John in his Revelation
of Jesus Christ. In this clearly delineated framework of
consummation, all of the eschatological sayings in New Testament
Scripture were references, not to some far, distant end-time period of
the New Covenant aeon, but to the cross-determined end of the Old
Covenant age. This is in perfect agreement with the imminent or nearness
expectations that are so pronounced in the latter period of the
apostolic writings (Rom. 13:11,12; 16:20; I Cor. 7:29-31; 10:11; Phil.
4:5; Heb. 10:25,35-37; I Pet. 4:7; James 5:8; I Jn. 2:18; Rev. 1:1-3;
22:10).
It should not be thought a strange thing that the New Testament was
written in the final period or "the last days" (Joel 2; Acts
2; Heb. 1:1,2) of the old aeon, because in the wisdom of God, Israel’s
history was the framework for the mission and message of Christ in terms
of the restoration of all things spoken by the prophets. The
transforming restoration of historical Israel was the central theme of
prophecy, and consequently the concentration of the cross-determined eschaton.
From this viewpoint, the only legitimate preaching of the gospel’s end
time, which takes in the full range of eschatology in New Testament
Scripture, is the preaching of Christ as the fulfillment of Israel’s
salvation-history. This is demonstrated again and again in apostolic
preaching. It is impressively clear that the apostles’ cross-centered,
age-changing message stands in sharp contrast to modern day
eschatological preaching that is focused on a piece of real estate in
Palestine (per Dispensational Premillennialism), or some impending
catastrophic destruction of the earth and the human race (per
Amillennialism).
It will be shown in this volume, with the full support of Scripture,
that every facet of New Testament eschatology is applicable exclusively
to the final period of the Old Testament aeon. It is an age-changing
eschatology that has the function of bringing forth the promised
"age to come" within the same framework of time and events
that achieves the consummation of the old aeon. Critical error is made
when the Old Testament aeon is conceived as being consummated at the
cross rather than through the cross, and the New Covenant
aeon is understood as coming to completion in the cross/Pentecost period
rather than the more extended cross/parousia time frame.
The common practice of making the cross a point of distinction
between "this age" in the Gospels and "this age"
in post-Pentecost writing (thus two different ages) is manifestly
untenable. On both sides of the cross, the expression "this
age" refers to the old aeon until its parousia-of-Christ
consummation. Likewise, "the age to come" in both pre- and
post-cross time refers to the coming of the Christian age. From this
perspective, "the last days" that constitute the time frame
for New Testament eschatology and the impartation of the eschatological
Spirit, call attention, not to the Christian age or to some closing
period of this endless age, but to the final period of the Old
Testament aeon that extended from the cross to the parousia of Christ.
Hence, New Testament eschatology is in reality Old Testament eschatology
(i.e., promise and prophecy) in process of fulfillment during the
transition from the old to the new aeon. This consummated change answers
to the coming of that which is "perfect" (I Cor. 13:10).
When, therefore, the cross and Christ’s parousia are retained
within the same eschaton, they have a complementary rather than a
counteractive age-changing function that brings to completion God’s
eternal purpose as set forth within the framework of "the two
covenants" (Gal. 4:21-31). From this perspective, Christ’s
parousia (which means presence or arrival) is tied, not to an outward,
physical, earthly appearance of some sort, but to the consummated coming
or arrival of the New Covenant aeon in the end of the old aeon. His
presence, therefore, is a covenantal presence in terms of the new and
everlasting covenant, which is explanatory of Paul’s solitary aim to
"win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own
righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith
of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil.
3:8,9).
During the transition period peculiar to Paul’s day, he had in view
the consummated covenantal change or conformity to the image of Christ
in writing, "For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of
righteousness by faith" (Gal. 5:5). For him, Christ’s arrival or
presence was bound up in the arrival of the New Covenant aeon. This
unquestionably was the focal point of the gospel’s futurism, beyond
which one can not carry New Testament eschatology without undermining
both the completion and the permanency of the New Covenant aeon. There
is no place for eschatology in that which brings man into the full, face
to face presence of Christ.
We believe that within the Six Parts of this volume, more than
adequate proof is given for a biblical, singular, indivisible, cross/parousia-of-Christ eschaton relative to a cross-determined
change from the old to the new covenantal aeon. In Part One,
attention is given to the Problem of Time that exists for the
interpreter who, for whatever reason, fails to remain within the gospel’s
clearly delimitated futurism for the one and only cross/parousia-of-Christ eschaton. The predominance of end-time
nearness in the New Testament is inescapable. This is demonstrated by
the incessant efforts of scholarship to account for the eschatological
consciousness of the early church, when, in the minds of most
interpreters, the end still has not been reached.
Over the years a number of scholars have concluded that the end-time
expectations of the early church proved to be a delusion, and that it
was not long before the church began to make adjustments to the failure
of Christ’s parousia and the end of the world to take place. Some
believed that such adjustments can be detected in the later writings of
Paul, particularly in the pastoral letters, where concern for the
growth, organization and worship of the church is seen as a shift in
interest from Christ’s parousia to continued historical existence.
However, when the closing period of the Old Testament aeon is seen as
the framework for the eschatological outlook of the early church, the
emphasis placed on the upbuilding of the church was essentially tied to
its coming to maturity or perfection at the parousia of Christ. Christ’s
disciples understood that they were the last generation of the
old aeon, but on the other hand they were conscious of the fact that
even though they were in the world, they were not of the world
(Jno. 17); that in Christ they were the people of the coming new aeon.
From this perspective, the early church never faced any eschatological
disappointment, for the age-ending parousia of Christ did not fail to
take place within the time frame of that generation.
Over the years other scholars have questioned the authenticity of
many sayings of Christ concerning the nearness of the end, believing
that such sayings were attributed to Him by the early church. This
approach to the problem of time has been revived recently by many
prominent mainline scholars, as for example, the Jesus Seminar launched
in 1985 composed of more than 100 scholars, of whom nearly half meet
twice a year (the most recent meeting in South Bend, Indiana, Oct. 86)
to assess and vote on what should be considered the authentic sayings of
Jesus. There is currently a widespread movement toward surrendering as
unauthentic the eschatological sayings of Jesus that, in the end-time
mentality of the interpreter, would mean that Jesus was mistaken in
believing that the end was near.
We shall examine these and other mainline time solutions
proposed by different scholars in their efforts to account for an
assumed non-fulfillment, failure, delay or postponement of the end time
taught and expected by Christ and the early church. It will be seen that
the problem lies in what has been assumed, rather than in what
the Scriptures actually teach.
In Part Two, an overview is given of Dispensational
Premillennialism, which accounts for an alleged delay in Christ’s
parousia, particularly the coming of the kingdom of God, by the
employment of a postponement hermeneutic. Under this arbitrarily
chosen method of interpretation, the crucifixion of Christ represents
Israel’s rejection of a bona fide offer of the Davidic kingdom (in a
literal, earthly form correspondent to the Old Covenant economy),
resulting in the setting up of a temporal church age – the
so-called mystery age. In the conclusion of this age, Christ
returns to establish an earthly kingdom that allegedly fulfills God’s
promises to Israel – at least for a literal thousand years.
One of the merits of premillenarians is their equation of the gospel’s
futurism with the fulfillment of "the hope of Israel," a
future that clearly is extended beyond the cross/Pentecost time frame.
Their error from our viewpoint, however, is the failure to see the full
outreach of the cross-determined eschaton that accomplished, without
delay, the complete fulfillment of Israel’s promised future according
to the terms of the promised New Covenant – a fulfillment that was
tied to the consummated arrival of the new aeon coincident with Christ’s
arrival or parousia.
Part Three deals with the meaning of The Millennium. A study of
this highly controversial subject serves to highlight some of the major
differences between two extreme interpretative systems (premillenarianism
versus amillenarianism) in contrast to what we believe to be the
biblical framework of time and history for this particular end-time
episode in Revelation 20.
In Part Four, attention is called to some of the distinctive
eschatological concepts inherent in amillennialism, particularly the dichotomizing
principle of interpretation in contrast to the postponement
hermeneutic of premillennialism. A fundamental error committed by
non-millenarians is that of dividing the one cross-determined eschaton
into two distinct, separate end times – one at the end of the
old aeon, and one at an alleged conclusion of the Christian age.
Consequently, any scripture pointing to a post-Pentecost futurism is
labeled for a second eschaton at an alleged end of the Christian
age. It will be seen that what must be assumed here, namely, the
complete fulfillment of the hope of Israel in the cross/Pentecost
time frame, will not stand up under Paul’s treatment of Israel’s
promised future in post-Pentecost. This future of Israel can not
be collapsed in a restricted cross/Pentecost time frame, neither can it
be deferred, in the theology of non-millenarians, until the end of the
Christian age. Where, then, is it fulfilled?
Part Five is divided into two sections dealing with The
Resurrection of the Dead. In Section One, the imminency of the
resurrection in post-Pentecost time is shown to be anchored in the
decisive resurrection of Christ, the firstfruits (I Cor. 15:23), or the
firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18). Just as the term "firstfruits"
denotes two interrelated stages in the completion of a harvest,
we find a parallel situation with respect to resurrection in the cross/parousia-of-Christ eschaton. The first resurrection,
involving the perfection of the end-time saints (through their dying and
rising with Christ), formed what we call the bridge community for
the passage of Old Testament saints from sin-death to their consummated
New Covenant inheritance in Christ at His parousia. The design of the
perfection of the firstfruits (the pre-end-of-the-age believers)
was not the exclusion, but the age-consumating inclusion
of the faithful dead of the former dispensation.
In Section Two, we deal with the bodily or somatic aspect of
the resurrection, showing that I Cor. 15 can not be isolated from Rom.
6-8 in Paul’s understanding of bodily death and resurrection.
There is a futuristic dimension of the resurrection defended by Paul in
I Cor. 15. A verse by verse exegesis of all 58 verses of I Cor. 15 is
made (consisting of seven chapters or sub-divisions), showing that I Cor.
15 is not peripheral but central to Paul’s treatment of the
resurrection, of which Christ is the firstfruits or the firstborn one.
It will be seen that an assumed spiritual resurrection in Romans
6-8 versus an assumed physical resurrection in I Cor. 15 is
foreign to the thinking of Paul.
Finally, in Part Six, some concluding observations are made on
the everlasting nature of the New Covenant creation, and from this
perspective we champion the abiding relevancy of realized eschatology.
The commonly voiced objection that if every facet of eschatology in New
Testament Scripture has been realized, and if all the prophecies and
promises of God have been fulfilled, then we are left in a hopeless,
limbo state of existence. This betrays a woeful lack of understanding
and acceptance of the fullness and completeness of the never-ending life
we have in Christ in terms of the everlasting New Covenant. As
creaturely, finite beings, we always shall have needs that must be met
continually by the providential care and power of God, including
continued life beyond one’s biological mode of being. This is not
denied. That which we do oppose, and which we believe is a distortion of
biblical eschatology, and therefore of the true meaning of life,
is the lifting of the gospel’s end-time futurism out of its covenantal
framework and giving it a carnal meaning and application (e.g., the
destruction of earth and humanity) that serves only to overshadow that
which is central and abiding relative to God’s redemptive work through
Christ.
The feeling that the eschatological existence or consciousness of the
early church must be duplicated in every generation of believers; that
every generation from the cross onward must also, in order to have hope,
be waiting for the coming of that which is perfect, is an unconscious
denial of God’s completed work in Christ. Praise be to God that the
period of time from the cross to the full end of the Jewish age – the
time for the eschatological workings of the imparted Spirit – can
not and need not be duplicated in our day. We are not and can
not be the latter day (i.e., the pre-end-of-the-age) saints. Neither can
we be, as were they, the firstfruits that were brought to
maturity or perfection within the period of covenantal transition.
Unlike them, we do not stand between the ages, participating in the
once-and-for-all transition. Rather, in view of a first century
realized eschatology, we are privileged to be partakers of the fullness
of the promised life of God through Christ. The only firstfruits taken
from among men of the last generation of the old aeon have been redeemed
(Rev. 14:4). Babylon has fallen (v.8). The battle of Armageddon is past
history. May we, therefore, cease to continually look for an end time
that does not fall within the range of biblical eschatology and instead,
with joy and optimism, arise to the challenge of now "having the
everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to
every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people" (v.6), for
"Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end,
upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to
establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for
ever" (Isa. 9:7).
Max R. King
Warren, Ohio
July 1987
