Where is Jesus coming?

This post piggybacks on my prior post:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/07/revelation-inside-and-out.html

i) Amils, premils, and classic postmils believe the return of Christ is future. Indeed, the future Parousia is a benchmark of orthodoxy. However, certain well-known passages in the Gospels and Revelation are preterist prooftexts. Not only does Revelation refer to Jesus coming but to his coming "soon" (Rev 1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6-7,12,20; cf. 1:3). On one reading, that would suggest that Jesus was expected to return in the lifetime of the 1C readers. But since that seems to be manifestly false, either the predictions are mistaken or else our interpretation is mistaken. If the predictions are mistaken, this wouldn't be some marginal error. We're waiting for something that will never happen, and that raises questions about the promises of Scripture generally regarding the world to come and our participation in the world to come. 

ii) One face-saving explanation is that Jesus came symbolically in God's judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD. But that raises the question of whether promises about the world to come in general should be given the same treatment. If they can be symbolically construed to stand for earthly events, then is there an intermediate state? Is there a future resurrection of the just? Do we go to heaven (or hell) when we die? Or is that a symbolic depiction of this life, this world? Is that in the past or present–with no future hope that things will ever get better? 

iii) Another problem is that whatever the merits of that interpretation in reference to the Olivet Discourse, there are no clues to indicate that Revelation is alluding to the fall of Jerusalem. 

iv) Suppose we take a different approach. Revelation consists of an introduction (1:1-8), followed by a continuous series of visions. Almost all the action takes place in John's vision, from 1:9-22:21. So that raises a logical question: when Revelation says Jesus is coming soon, is he coming soon inside or outside the visionary world? Within the world of John's vision, Jesus may be coming soon. It's like John is watching a movie in his head. He sees the plot unfold. 

At one level, John sees this happen in the vision. At another level, John sees this happen on Patmos. Where does it happen? Depends. There's the real world. The penal colony on Patmos, surrounded by the Aegean sea. That's outside the vision. Then there's "where" he is within the vision, as an immersive observer. There are places outside the vision, in the 1C Roman empire, as well as places inside the vision. In a sense, that shifts the question from when Jesus is coming to where Jesus is coming. 

v) A possible objection to this interpretation is Rev 1:1,3. That's from an introductory section before we get into the vision. However, that's a summary or lead-in to what the reader is about to witness in John's extended vision. 

In what respect did Jesus "show" or "reveal" to John "what must take place soon"? That must have reference to what follows in the visionary narrative. It's not something Jesus told John directly, apart from the vision, but is mediated through the vision. John, and various characters within the vision, experience the impending return of Christ in that surreal history as it unfolds right before his eyes. 

Once the reader is transported into the vision, he never leaves. It has an entry point but no exit. Like parachuting out of a plane onto an island. After that, everything happens on the island. 

vi) Another objection to this interpretation might be, if Jesus was only coming soon in vision but not in reality, how does that give beleagured 1C Christians any hope of deliverance? One answer is the fate of martyrs (Rev 6:9-11; 20:4). Jesus comes to them by bringing them to himself. At the moment of death they are inducted into God's presence. And that has the advantage of making that hope available to every Christian generation. A very tangible hope, and not some far-off hope that only one generation at the Parousia will enjoy. 

vii) There will, of course, be a Second Coming in the real world, but we can't use Revelation to fix the timing. Events in Revelation are meant to have some counterparts outside the vision, but how they correspond is often intentionally open-textured, to leave room for multiple applications. 

Is the Second Coming obsolete?

The other day in class I was explaining why some theologians find the personal second coming of Christ to be an awkward fit with the modern world. For example, will Israeli Air Defense scramble two F-15s when they pick up a UFO incoming on radar?

Like I said, awkward.

— Tentative Apologist (@RandalRauser) April 11, 2019

It's no more or less "awkward" than the Ascension. It's the Ascension in reverse (Acts 1:9-11). Once again, why is Rauser a contributor to The Christian Post? What does that tell you about the editorial oversight of Richard Land? 

What will the return of Christ look like?

Imagine you're filming the Bible. You get to the Parousia. You have the benefit of CGI. So how do you visually represent the return of Christ? (Yes, Puritans disapprove. This post is not for Puritans.)

I've discussed this before. I'd like to consider it from another angle. Let's say Jesus returns in the Shekinah. He's encased in the Shekinah. Think Ezk 1 & 10. 

One possibility is a vertical approach, where the Shekinah is high in the sky, near the zenith. If it hovers in place, it can be seen night and day. 

Another possibility is more of a horizontal approach, like the sun, moon, or morning star coming over the horizon. Suppose, from where an observer stands, the Shekinah is below the horizon, then appears over and above the horizon as the earth rotates, as if it's (initially) coming towards the observer from across the horizon rather than overhead and downwards. An ascending motion instead of a descending motion. 

We might also consider the role of clouds. ("Coming in/with the clouds".) The most spectacular sunsets and sunrises occur when the sky is cloudy in the east or west, and the sun appears behind or beneath the clouds. When clouds are underlit by the rising sun, before it surfaces above the horizon–or the setting sun, after it dips below the horizon. 

So we might visualize clouds on the eastern horizon underlit by the Shekinah, before coming up and over the horizon. Initially there is darkness. Then first light. Then the clouds flush brighter with variegated hues. And the clouds transmit the light. It floods the eastern sky, as a prelude to the Shekinah cresting the hillside, mountain range, or seascape.

Biblical hyperbole

This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits (Gen 6:15).

i) I'd like to revisit two issues I've discussed before. One objection to the historicity of Noah's flood is the claim that a wooden ship that big wouldn't be seaworthy. It would lack structure integrity.

But as I've noted in the past, we don't even know for sure that the ark was made of wood. Although that's sometimes how the word is translated, if you read commentaries you see that scholars don't know what they word means. They assume it refers to some kind of tree, but that's just a guess.

ii) Why does the flood account even state the dimensions of the ark? It could tell the same story without including that detail. One explanation is to stress the scale of the impending deluge. A big evacuation vessel for a big flood. 

However, that's also consistent with a hyperbolic interpretation. On that view, it states the dimensions of the ark in the same way that it uses other comparisons to indicate the scale of the deluge. Yet some of those phrases are used elsewhere hyperbolically. So it's possible that the ark, while a wooden vessel, was actually smaller and seaworthy. 

Every eye shall see him (Rev 1:7). 

i) Critics say that reflects a flat-earth cosmography. But as I've noted in the past, if the sign of the Son of Man hovered for one rotation period, everyone would see it over the course of 24 hours. 

ii) But another possibility is that the statement is hyperbolic. A way of saying this is a public event. There will be many eyewitnesses, but not necessarily that every human being will see it. 

iii) Actually, the "sign of the Son of Man" comes from Mt 24:30. One question is whether the sign is distinct from Jesus or if Jesus is the sign. Does it refer to seeing Jesus in the sky or a symbolic celestial harbinger that heralds his impending approach?

iv) Even if everyone doesn't see Jesus at the moment of his arrival, everyone might eventually see Jesus after he arrives. Although the Parousia refers to the physical, bodily return of Christ, it's possible for Jesus to simultaneously appear in multiple locations as a visionary Christophany. In that mode, he could even be visible to the blind. 

The bright morning star

28 Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear His voice 29 and come out — those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment (Jn 5:28-29).

As I've said on other occasions, when reading the Bible I think it's a good exercise to see it through the eye of a movie director. If you were filming the Bible, how would you envision these descriptions? Take the resurrection of the just. 

Here's one way I imagine the scene. Jesus returns in the Shekinah (Acts 1:9-11; Ezk 1:4-28). He hovers in the lower atmosphere. As the globe rotates, he appears over the horizon, like the morning star (Rev 22:16; 2:28; cf. Isa 14:12; Num 24:17). As light from the Cytherean Shekinah flashes across cemeteries, with graves facing east, towards the Christic morning star, bodies of the saints rematerialize in their tombs ("a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. And I looked, and behold, there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them," Ezk 37:7-8). Their bodies are then reanimated as the Spirit reunites body and soul ("and the breath came into them," Ezk 37:10). Then tombs open and they emerge ("and they lived and stood on their feet," Ezk 37:10). 

While the Cytherean Shekinah repeatedly dawns over the rotating horizon, row after row of cemeteries, from east to west, in sidereal succession, will stir to life ("Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise. You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy! For your dew is a dew of light, and the earth will give birth to the dead," Isa 26:19). Those who sleep in the dust will awake (Dan 12:2)–in the twinkling of an eye (1 Cor 15:51-52). Myriads of recreated, rejuvenated saints, facing the Cytherean Shekinah, gazing at the Christic morning star. 

Of course, not everyone is formally buried. Scripture uses graves and graveyards as a synecdoche for the dead generally. Although some of the imagery might be figurative, the oracle in Jn 5:28-29 foreshadows Jesus raising Lazarus. That's a foretaste of an eschatological scene. 

Dark skies

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep (1 Thes 4:14, ESV).

This is a fascinating little verse. Because it's rather elliptical, and the syntax is ambiguous, we need to be cautious about erecting a huge theological edifice on this slender foundation. That said, it's worth exploring what the passage may well mean.

The ESV gives a highly defensible rendering. Perhaps the best rendering. 

Assuming that's a good translation, several implications seem to follow:

i) Dead Christians (the "saints") are currently in the presence of Christ, wherever he is. We might say heaven, although Christ has a physical existence. Is it a state or a place?

ii) Be that as it may, the verse indicates that when Jesus comes back to earth, he will bring the saints back with him. The saints will accompany him from heaven to earth. They will be his entourage or retinue. 

iii) Assuming that's the correct interpretation, let's try to visualize that scene. First, you have the "mechanics" of transporting them from heaven to earth. Maybe they just appear out of thin air. Instant teleportation. 

iv) If they descend from the sky, we're talking about–what?–billions of the saints suddenly appearing overhead. If they're between the sun and the earth, they'd darken the sky. Likewise, if they're between the moon and the earth, on a full moon. So the sky might be black with the crowded figures of the saints, casting a vast shadow over the earth. 

Or if they're not between the sun and the moon, they'd appear to form a vast black cloud or flock of birds in formation flight. 

That alone will make the Second Coming a highly visible event. Imagine living on earth at the time. Imagine an unbeliever watching this unfold. 

v) Assuming this interpretation is correct, it's at odds with preterism. Some preterists think Jesus already returned, symbolically, in the Fall of Jerusalem. But of course, there was nothing corresponding to billions of saints suspended in midair, descending to earth. 

Sheet lightning

For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man (Mt 24:27). 

The imagery may be describing sheet lightning. That phenomenon lights up the sky because lightning inside clouds illuminates the clouds, diffusing brilliant light over a wide expanse–like a light behind a screen. If clouds cover the night sky, a lightning flash embedded in clouds will instantly radiate out to illuminate the entire sky. In addition, some electrical storms have constant flashes of lightning, so that light and dark momentarily alternate in a continuous cycle until the storm passes over. 

The imagery of lightning emanating from the east may suggest an electrical storm approaching from the east. The eastern orientation has positive connotations because the sun rises in the east. Sunrise has positive connotations, whereas sunset and nighttime have naturally apprehensive connotations, especially for primitive people. But even in the modern age, nighttime is more dangerous than daytime.    

Caught up to meet him

16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord (1 Thes 4:16-17).

This is a highly significant, intriguing, and much-debated eschatological passage. I'll just comment on a few items:

i) On the face of it, v17 uses the imagery of levitation. It's naturally impossible for humans to levitate, but this could be miraculous. Many humans wish they could fly. That's a popular fantasy. We sometimes fly in dreams. And hang-gliders have settled for the next best thing. 

ii) What is meant by the "clouds"? In biblical usage, "cloud" often an idiom for the Shekinah. And that's because the Shekinah had a cloudy appearance (like plasma, dust devils, and fire devils). On that interpretation, Jesus is returning in or with the Shekinah.

iii) Yet the passage speaks of "clouds" in the plural. My guess is that it's a double entendre. The imagery is trading on the connotations of clouds overhead or clouds on the horizon to create a word-picture of Jesus descending from the sky. Obviously, we associate clouds with the sky. But the actual referent is probably the Shekinah, and not ordinary clouds (i.e. a visible mass of condensed water vapor floating in the atmosphere). It uses natural atmospheric imagery to depict the return of Jesus, but the same word triggers associations with the Shekinah. 

iv) It might be argued that the imagery is figurative. If, for instance, the trumpet in v16 is figurative, then it seems arbitrary to assume the imagery in v17 is literal. 

v) There's the question of whether v16 refers to three different things (command, voice of archangel, trumpet sound) or one thing under three different depictions. The command of Jesus is like the voice of an archangel or like a military trumpet. Implicit similes. 

vi) In principle, Jesus might well be accompanied by angels and archangels. However, I think this particular passage is using the "voice of an archangel" to describe the command of Jesus, and not a separate speaker. 

vii) The choice between literal and figurative might be a false dichotomy inasmuch as there could be a third option: something analogous to a trumpet sound. Something similar will happen. Something functionally equivalent. 

It wouldn't be surprising if the return of Christ is heralded by spectacular sounds as well as spectacular sights, to grab everyone's attention. Consider the literally earsplitting volume of the Krakatoa explosion:

It was 10:02 a.m. local time when the sound emerged from the island of Krakatoa, which sits between Java and Sumatra in Indonesia. It was heard 1,300 miles away in the Andaman and Nicobar islands (“extraordinary sounds were heard, as of guns firing”); 2,000 miles away in New Guinea and Western Australia (“a series of loud reports, resembling those of artillery in a north-westerly direction”); and even 3,000 miles away in the Indian Ocean island of Rodrigues, near Mauritius (“coming from the eastward, like the distant roar of heavy guns.”)…The British ship Norham Castle was 40 miles from Krakatoa at the time of the explosion. The ship’s captain wrote in his log, “So violent are the explosions that the ear-drums of over half my crew have been shattered. My last thoughts are with my dear wife. I am convinced that the Day of Judgement has come.”

http://nautil.us/issue/38/noise/the-sound-so-loud-that-it-circled-the-earth-four-times

viii) in Acts 1:9-11, we have an account of the Ascension, from the viewpoint of earthbound observers. And that says the return of Christ will operate in reverse. Normally, it's hermeneutically illicit to use one writer to interpret another writer.  This, however, is more a case of using the underlying event as a frame of reference. That's a reason to view the description in 1 Thes 4:16-17 as more realistic than figurative. Mind you, even eyewitness accounts sometimes use poetic metaphors for vividness. 

The canon and the Parousia

http://michaeljkruger.com/did-early-christians-believe-that-jesus-would-return-in-their-own-lifetime-implications-for-canon/

Another Way To View The Delay Of Christ's Return

"I want us to think of Christmas this year not as a great event in the flow of history, but as the arrival of the end of history which happened, as it were, but yesterday, and will be consummated very soon by the second appearing of Christ. Let me make one last effort to help you see it this way. Most of you probably know someone who is 90 years old or older—probably a woman. I want you to imagine 22 of these ladies standing here in front, side by side, facing you, each one still alert and able to remember her childhood and marriage and old age. And then instead of seeing them side by side as contemporaries, have them turn and face sideways so they form a queue, and imagine that each one lived just after the other. If the one on my far left were alive today, do you know when the one on my far right would have been born? At the same time Jesus was. Jesus was born just 22 ladies ago. That is not a very long time. Just 22 people between you and the incarnation." (John Piper)

How will Jesus return?

Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Mt 24:30). 

Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him (Rev 1:7).

i) How will Jesus return? Some people think the depiction of Jesus literally coming down from the sky reflects an antiquated mythological cosmography, where heaven is "up". 

ii) In theory, this could be stock imagery without being mythological. We need to distinguish between mythology and dead metaphors.

iii) In addition, there's the question of how Christians should update futuristic descriptions. The Bible uses period imagery when depicting the future. Imagery that reflects the world familiar to the original audience. But if this is really about the distant future, then we need to make some mental adjustments.

iv) In theory, Jesus could return the way he suddenly appears to people after the Resurrection. There he appears out of nowhere. He appears and disappears out of thin air. That doesn't require Jesus to come down from the sky. And this also shows that Jesus reappearing isn't necessarily wedded to an allegedly obsolete cosmography. Jesus needn't pass through space to appear to someone. At least not visibly. 

v) That said, a basic problem with dismissing the depiction of Jesus coming down from the sky is the Ascension account. 

9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. 10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, 11 and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9-11).

That's presented as an eyewitness account, in observational language. That's what you and I would see, had we been there. 

And it describes the return of Christ as a reversal of the Ascension. If we take the Bible seriously, we can't just discount the depiction of Jesus coming down from the sky.

vi) A critic might object that passages like Mt 24:30 and Rev 1:7 presume a flat-earth perspective. If the world is a globe, how could Jesus be seen all at once by everybody on earth? But if the earth was flat, then everyone would enjoy the same vantage-point in relation to the sky. Everyone would see the entire sky, facing the earth. 

Yet even if, for the sake of argument, we grant that this imagery reflects a flat-earth cosmography, that might be an accommodation to how ancient people thought about the universe. 

Mind you, I doubt there was any one way that ancient people viewed the universe. Many people probably operated with naive realism, but some people were more reflective and attentive difficulties with that viewpoint. 

vii) However, it doesn't take much imagination to see how these descriptions are consistent with modern astronomy. If the sign of the Son of Man appeared in the sky for as little as one rotation period, everyone would be in a position to see it over the course of 24 hours.

Suppose the sign was like an approaching comet. Everyone would see it weeks in advance. 

In the age of telecommunications, moreover, everyone can see the same thing, even if that's out of range of where they live–or the skies are overcast where they live. 

viii) This, in turn, suggest a practical function for Jesus coming down from the sky. Suppose Jesus simply appeared on earth. How would anyone know that's the Second Coming of Christ? Outwardly, he looks like an ordinary human being. Moreover, there's a sense in which he only be seen at one place at a time.

Suppose, however, the "sign" of the Son of Man approaches earth from outer space. It isn't just ancient people with an interest in astrology who were impressed by portents and prodigies. Modern people with an interest in astronomy are impressed by portends and prodigies. Take speculation about an impact event that may extinguish life on earth, if a huge astroid strikes the earth. Or take recently speculation about whether we're receiving radio signals from an alien civilization.

Suppose the Shekinah initially appeared in outer space, visible from earth. At a distance, it might seem like a natural phenomenon. Yet astronomers are baffled, because it doesn't fit the profile of a comet, astroid, supernova, &c. As it comes closer, it doesn't resemble any natural astronomical phenomenon. And it's trajectory is naturally inexplicable. Of course, many people might initially interpret this as a flying saucer or fleet of flying saucers.  

ix) Another factor might be additional events or supernatural phenomena, as an unmistakable precursor to the Parousia. The fulfillment of ancient oracles regarding the Antichrist, or things like that. 

Waiting for Jesus

Suppose you knew a loved one was going to fly into town. That much is certain. But there's a catch: you know the gate, but you don't know the date. 

Say that gate has one incoming flight per day. So everyday you go to the airport, wait for the passengers to disembark, one by one, to see if that's the flight your loved one took. You never know from one day to the next, or week, or month, when they'll arrive, yet you know they're scheduled to fly into town, and you know where to find them when that happens. 

You will keep on going back to the airport until they arrive. You will cease going back to the airport once they arrive. 

That's rather like what the Bible says about the return of Jesus. It calls for a degree of preparedness.

What do you do when no one is watching you?

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours (Mk 11:24). 

45 “Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing when he comes. 47 Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. 48 But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed,’ 49 and begins to beat his fellow servants and eats and drinks with drunkards, 50 the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know 51 and will cut him in pieces and put him with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Mt 24:45-51; par. Lk 12:42-48).

i) I'd like to comment on the implications of this parable for the problem of unanswered prayer. The Markan verse is a typical example. There we have an unqualified promise. And it's not an isolated example. The NT contains similar promises. But, of course, in real life, prayer doesn't bat a thousand. Indeed, I doubt the batting average for most Christian at prayer is anywhere near that.

And not just for Christians in general. Do we really suppose the NT writers always got what they prayed for? I doubt it. 

ii) So why doesn't God answer prayer more often? I've discussed this before, but I'd like to attack it from a fresh angle. 

To begin with, it's a mistake to take certain truths to a logical extreme. That might sound counterintuitive to say. Indeed, I think it's a good thing to take abstract truths to a logical extreme.

However, that's not necessarily the case concerning some practical truths. That's because, especially in a fallen world, there's the problem of competing goods. Taking one practical truth as far as you can may lead to neglecting another practical truth. Sometimes we need to balance one off against another. They modify each other. Otherwise, taking two (or more) practical truths to a logical extreme may put them on a collision course. 

iii) Although the parable is about the Parousia, it involves a general principle. How do people behave when they think no one is watching? For instance, you have people who behave differently under the gaze of a security camera. But if they forget about the security camera, or if they think it's off, then they may lose their moral inhibitions. If God was a hovering presence, many more people would feign to be God-fearing. 

Or consider the cliché plot of trusting parents who must take a business trip out of town. They leave their home in the hands of their teenage kids. Of course their kids promise to be responsible in the absence of their parents. But when, due to unforeseen circumstances, the parents return early, they find a party in progress, with alcohol, drugs, hookups, and so on.

iv) Apropos (iii), unanswered prayer is a test of fidelity. Sometimes God plays the role of the absentee master in the parable. If God made his presence conspicuous by routinely answering prayer, that would be like having a security camera running in every room of the house. To be on your best behavior when you know the cops are watching you says nothing about your character. Consider what happens in a blackout or emergency when police are so overwhelmed that looters feel free to ransack stories with impunity.  

God not answering prayer is like the master whose return flight is canceled due to inclement weather. Or so it seems. The security camera is off. Or so it seems.

Prayer promises are counterbalanced by unanswered prayer, because God's apparent absence is a test of fidelity. If God routinely answered prayer, that would function as an artificial deterrent to infidelity. You'd be faithful because you knew God was watching you. You'd know God was watching you due to the regular evidence of divine intercession. But to be faithful when God seems to be absent or indifferent is the acid test. 

And the door was shut

25 “Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were wise. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, 4 but the wise took flasks of oil with their lamps. 5 As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept. 6 But at midnight there was a cry, ‘Here is the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ 7 Then all those virgins rose and trimmed their lamps. 8 And the foolish said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ 9 But the wise answered, saying, ‘Since there will not be enough for us and for you, go rather to the dealers and buy for yourselves.’ 10 And while they were going to buy, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut. 11 Afterward the other virgins came also, saying, ‘Lord, lord, open to us.’ 12 But he answered, ‘Truly, I say to you, I do not know you.’ 13 Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour (Mt 25:1-13).

The logistics are somewhat obscure, but the basic idea is that the torchlight procession escorts the bride and groom from her home to his home–where the wedding ceremony takes place. His home represents "heaven." The door between heaven and hell. The foolish bridesmaids are shut out. 

This parable has two dichotomies: light and darkness; inside and outside. Suppose we were to update it a bit. Suppose Jesus was addressing a modern audience, using a modern equivalent. 

Shopping malls often resemble city blocks, where walkways are streets, with stores on either side. The walkways are walled in by the stores. The main difference is this is covered space. You have a roof over the the walkways. A shopping mall is a a village under a common roof. A shopping mall inverts the spatial relationships: outside becomes inside and inside becomes outside. Interior doors become exterior doors, leading to the outside world. 

Depending on the design, there may only be two sources of illumination. The main source is artificial lighting, provided by lights in the ceiling as well as store windows facing the walkways. An ancillary source is natural lighting from the  mall entrance or exit. The entrance to the mall is often at right angles to the central aisle. In case of a power outage, the only source of light might be from exits that lie around the corner, if they have glass doors or open doors.

Suppose some girls go shopping. Because the weather forecast predicts a thunderstorm, they take the precaution of bringing flashlights in case the mall goes dark when they are inside. As a matter of fact, there's a power outage, plunging the mall into darkness, but thanks to the flashlights, they find their way to the exit. Indeed, once they round the corner, they no longer need their flashlights, because they can see the outside through the open door. A patch of light against the surrounding darkness.

Suppose some other girls go shopping. But they don't take the same precautions. When lightning knocks out power, the interior instantly becomes pitch black. They grope in the darkness, looking for the exit by feeling their way along the walls on either side of the aisle. Two or three go in the wrong direction. 

By chance, another two or three go in the right direction. They round the corner and see the open door. They breathe a sigh of relief and leisurely walk towards the exit. But then the door begins to close. In panic, they run screaming towards the door, as the pool of light narrows to a sliver. But it closes before they get there. Now they can't even see where the door is. They are sealed in–forever! Eternal midnight. Trapped inside the darkened mall for all eternity. 

Admittedly, that seems like a harsh penalty for ditzy shoppers, but that confuses the allegory with what it illustrates. 

Astrological atheism

Over at Debunking Christianity, apostate Hector Avalos says:

One should not let these apocalyptic interpreters forget that it is atheists who have been 100% correct in predicting that those end dates will fail, while it is believers who have been 100% incorrect. In other words, atheists (and other skeptics) have been the best "prophets" when it comes to these end dates.

To simplify, let's use round numbers. Suppose Jesus was going to return before 3000 AD. That means the odds are about 11,000 to 1 that he won't return on any particular day during that interval. Any astrologer with half a brain could safely predict that any given date for his return will be wrong. Mathematically speaking, the odds are overwhelmingly against the accuracy of any date you pull out of the hat. And that will be the case even if Jesus was, in fact, going to return before 3000 AD. 

Predicting when something won't happen can be infinitely easier than predicting when it will happen. If it happens on one day, it won't happen on all the other days. The days when it won't happen outnumber the day when it will happen by many orders of magnitude. Don't pat yourself on the back when you accurately predict a nonevent. In general, it takes no foresight to predict the nonoccurence of an event on any given date. 

Some events are predictable if they fall under human control. Likewise, some events are predicable if the outcome is connected to an observable a chain of causes, like running out of fuel, or the trajectory of a hurricane. 

But in the abstract, a one-time event is unpredictable in the sense that it could happen at any time, yet it won't happen most days, weeks, years, centuries–even millennia (or more). 

For instance, some scientists theorize that a vast asteroid struck the earth about 65 million years ago. Let's grant that for the sake of argument. Consider all the days when it didn't happen, both before and after. Yet impact craters bear witness to such events, however rare or isolated. 

The parables of Jesus

i) One of the generally neglected lines of evidence for the historical Jesus are the parables of Jesus. A partial exception is Keener's treatment in The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. These are mostly clustered in the Synoptic Gospels, although you have two parables (the true vine, the good shepherd), as well as many implicit parabolic metaphors, in the Fourth Gospel.

The parables are a central and distinctive feature of Jesus' teaching. Not only do they figure in his teaching, but many of his actions have a parabolic significance. Sometimes the two are tied together. He will tell a parable to illustrate an action. Or his action will be symbolic. It would be very difficult to extract the parables from the historical Jesus generally.

If, however, you deny the historicity of Jesus, then you have to account for the parables. Who wrote them? If Matthew and Luke simply got their parabolic material from Mark, it would be easier to attribute them to a single source. But Matthew and Mark have unique parables. 

So an unbeliever must hypothesize an anonymous literary genius or geniuses who composed these parables, and somehow got the entire Christian community to incorporate them into the Gospels. 

ii) I'd like to make one additional point: some parables indicate that Jesus could return at any moment, while other parables indicate signs which will precede his return. That's a tension that commentators struggle with. And it's cited as evidence that the Gospels are fallible. 

Problem is, the prima facie tension is so obvious that it could hardly be unwitting. That tension would be discernible from the get-go. 

To say that reflects a contradiction is naive, for the contrast is clearly intentional. It's something that Jesus puts out there and leaves unresolved–to keep listeners off balance. Be watchful, but not presumptuous! It strikes a balance between complacency and anxiety. A little uncertainty is a good thing; too much uncertainty is a bad thing. 

This, in turn, figures in what we should make of Christ's apparent prediction that the world would end soon. That's just one side of his eschatological teaching. That needs to be counterbalanced by the other side. 

If you take his teaching as a whole into account, we are kept in suspense precisely because we don't know how or when this tension will resolve itself. Kinda like a Whodunit. The novelist (or screenwriter) includes clues, not only to help the reader (or viewer) isolate the culprit, but to throw him off the scent. Early in the story, the novelist will feed the reader clues that lead the read to suspect the wrong character. To prematurely solve the mystery.

Then, as the plot progresses, that character is rules out, and attention turns to another person of interest. By process of elimination, the mystery is finally solved. And it may be a plot twist. A surprise ending. To some extent, Jesus employs the technique of a mystery fiction writer.

Prelude to the Parousia

3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thes 2:3-4).

I'm going to discuss a neglected interpretation of this passage, but I will summarize some alternative interpretations before getting to that particular interpretation:

1) According to the preterist interpretation, this refers to events concerning the Second Temple in Jerusalem. But there are problems with a that identification:

i) According to our sources, nothing happened between the time of writing and the fall of Jerusalem that matches Paul's description in 2 Thes 2. 

It's possible that our sources are deficient, but if so, that's an admission that there's no supporting evidence for this interpretation.

ii) If this was fulfilled c. 70 AD, then there's a sense in which it's much too soon to be a useful precursor to the Parousia. After all, it's now 2000 years down the pike. If the interval between the prelude to the Parousia and the Parousia is that distant, it loses significance.

iii) If this was fulfilled c. 70 AD in a symbolic sense, then it's hard to see what grave error Paul is correcting. If the return of Christ is symbolic, what difference does it make to say he came back in the 40s or the 70s of the 1C? In any event, it's business as usual. All the same moral and natural evils continue as before. 

3) Commentator Gene Green thinks it denotes the imperial shrine in Thessalonika, dedicated to Julius and Augustus Caesar. But there are problems with that identification:

i) Would Paul refer to a pagan shrine as the "sanctuary of God"?

ii) From Paul's perspective, why would it be wrong for the Antichrist to oppose the imperial cult? 

iii) Green says "the apostle describes a cult center where people go to offer worship" (312), but I don't see where Paul in fact says that. Green's statement is far more specific.

iv) What historic event does Green think fulfilled this identification? It can't be the imperial cult, itself, for that wasn't opposed to other heathen devotions. 

v) Surely it's awfully provincial to say that Jesus could not return unless and until something happened at the imperial shrine in Thessalonika. 

4) Premils think it refers to the rebuilt millennial temple. But given that the Second Temple in Jerusalem was still intact and functioning at the time of writing, it's hard to see how such a labyrinthine allusion would be intelligible to the original audience. 

5) Commentator Greg Beale believes the "temple" is a synonym for the church. I think that interpretation has much to commend it, although it needs to be fleshed out. 

6) But let's consider a final identification:

It has also been thought by some patristic and modern commentators that Paul is referring to the heavenly temple, where God sits (Ps 10:4: "The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord, his throne is in heaven": cf. Isa 66:1; Mic 1:2; Hab 2:20; 1 En 14:17-22; 2 Bar 4:2-6). A. Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians (Yale 2000), 420.

This doesn't mean the Antichrist literally usurps the throne in the heavenly temple. Rather, Paul would be trading on ancient "war in heaven" motif. The Antichrist is an agent of Satan–the archetypal irreligious rebel. The "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4). So this would be a colorful way of depicting the Antichrist's insolent impiety. 

It has the advantage of allowing for a future fulfillment, as well as bringing the signs of the Parousia into closer conjunction with the Parousia itself. 

Rapture

-i-

In 2025, a brilliant star appeared in the sky. So bright it could be seen day and night.

Public officials said it was a supernova, but astronomers knew that wasn't possible, because there was no star in that location to go critical. 

A few months later, a solar eclipse and lunar eclipse occurred simultaneously. Astronomers were baffled because that's physically impossible. Sun and moon must be in different positions. 

Other inexplicable events began to happen. Overnight, a ziggurat appeared on a farm in Lancaster county, then disappeared. Public officials said it was a prank.

A herd of Irish elk was spotted in Kazakhstan. Yet Irish elk were thought to be extinct for millennia.

A lion killed a man in Akranes, Iceland. Officials had no idea where it came from.

Missing persons reports began to pour in. Not just people who went missing. But people who were seen to vanish. Sometimes one was taken, one was left. 

Chicago police took a disoriented man into custody who was speaking gibberish. At first they assumed he was drunk or high on drugs. But the tox report was clean. 

They recorded some of his ravings and played it back for a scholar at the Oriental Institute. At first the scholar couldn't recognize the dialect. Then they showed him something the man scribbled. 

The scholar then identified the language as Eblaite. Because it's a dead language, no one knew the pronunciation. But the cuneiform script was identifiable. 

-ii-

Kate was dazed when she returned home late. Her husband Ralph was worried:

Ralph: What happened?

Kate: I was driving by the old abandoned house where I grew up. There was a light inside. I parked the car. Peered through the living room window. Saw a woman inside. So I knocked on the door, and my mother answered the door. 

Ralph: That's impossible! She died 30 years ago. 

Kate: I know! But it was her. She invited me inside. We sat down and talked. The living room looked just like it did when I was a kid, before the house was abandoned. Maybe I'm going crazy, but I know what I saw.

Ralph and Kate drove back to the house. When they got there it was dark. Ralph had to force the front door open. Inside it was musty and dilapidated–like no one had been there for years. 

Kate decided to see her doctor the next day, in case she had brain cancer. 

-iii-

Government officials were giving bland assurances to dampen mass hysteria, but in private it was government officials who were panicking. Some generals speculated that it might be a prelude to an alien invasion.

Clint Underwood was a NASA astronomer and consultant to the President's National Security Advisor. Son of a pastor, he lost his faith when he studied at Cornell. 

Now, however, he was beginning to suspect that the ancient prophecies were coming true. What if Jesus was coming back. What if he was bringing back the saints, in the Shekinah cloud. 

Since the saints of the ages originally lived at different times, he theorized that when they returned en masse, they might bring back pockets of their own time. Things from the past might accompany them. 

-iv-

Clint was now explaining the situation to the ANSA.

ANSA: So what's your theory?

Clint: Well, to put it in layman's terms, I think we're experiencing the leading edge of a temporal shock wave. Ripples in time, reaching our shore–ahead of the wave.  

Like a tidal wave generated by continental plates rubbing against each other. Only this is a temporal tidal wave. Ripples of time are casting bits and piece of the past onto the shore, so to speak.

ANSA: What about the eclipse? 

Clint: That was the optical effect of a solar eclipse from one timeframe combined with a lunar eclipse from another timeframe. 

ANSA: And what about missing persons?

Clint: That's a bounce-back effect, like ripples slapping the end of the pool. A temporal rip current that sucks some people into the event horizon. 

Unfortunately, the closer it comes, the effects will be magnified.

ANSA: So what does that mean? Annihilation?

Clint: Not necessarily. Different timeframes can't coexist, for the same reason two physical objects can't occupy the same space at the same time. So it's highly disruptive. Possibly cataclysmic. 

But if it's just pockets of past times, the effects might be more localized. Very destructive, but survival is possible. We can only pray for the best. 

The graves were opened

52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many (Mt 27:52-53).

Many otherwise conservative (or fairly conservative) scholars are skittish when they come to this incident. 

i) This incident is anomalous in the sense that this is the only place where it's recorded. However, in terms of biblical theology, it's not anomalous. 

This is a microcosm of the resurrection of the just. That's a fundamental hope and expectation in biblical eschatology. 

ii) I don't think it's coincidental that this takes place right after the death of Christ. This is God's way of showing that the death of the Redeemer made atonement for the sins of his people. Here's some graphic evidence. Ever since Adam and Eve were banished from access to the tree of life, death has been the fate of all mankind, including God's people. Here we have a token reversal, keyed to the vicarious atonement of Christ. 

iii) The incident in Mt 27:52-53 is a foretaste and pledge for what the future holds. 

iv) Although this passage has no direct parallel in other Gospels, the raising of Lazarus is roughly analogous (Jn 11).

v) If the Bible is to be trusted, then this incident is exactly what will happen on a massive, worldwide scale when Jesus returns. 

If you happen to be walking through a cemetery at the time Jesus returns, that's what you will see. Graves will open and the dead in Christ will rise. This is a picture we need to take seriously, for this is what the resurrection of the just entails. If Christian scholars balk at that, they have failed to take to heart and think through the implications of biblical eschatology in this respect. That's how it cashes out in concrete terms. It will be a very physical, dramatic, hair-raising event.

(Some premil positions view the effects of the Parousia as multistaged rather than simultaneous. But even if it's a delayed effect, that's still the effect when it happens.)

vi) Admittedly, the object of glorification ranges along on continuum. At one end are Christians alive at the time Jesus returns. They will be instantly transformed.

At the other end are Christians whose bodies have disintegrated. God will reconstitute the unique molecular pattern of their bodies, and reunite their souls to their bodies. But where the body is intact, this is what will happen.

vii) Some readers have been conditioned by horror flicks about the zombie apocalypse to superimpose a false image on the text. But this doesn't describe rotting corpses which lumber around. To the contrary, they will be restored to life, youth, and health. Healthier than they were in the mortal prime of life.

viii) Mt 27:52-53 raises more questions than it answers, but that's a mark of historicity. If this was fiction, it would be easy for Matthew to tie up the loose ends. Fiction is tidy, reality is messy. 

ix) Some critics think it's legendary because, if it really happened, it would be a famous event. However:

a) The only people in a position to recognize that these were former decedents would be contemporary friends and relatives living in Jerusalem. And that might come down to just a handful of witnesses.

b) Jerusalem suffered two devastating attacks by the Romans, resulting in massive casualties, massive dislocation of survivors, as well as massive destruction of written records. 

How will Jesus return?

This is a follow-up to an earlier post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/11/second-coming.html

The physical, visible return of Christ is a pillar of the Christian faith. But can we be more specific? What will the return of Christ look like?

i) In the Gospels, Christ's appearance takes two forms. There's his ordinary human appearance. That's how he usually appears. A normal human body. 

But we also have the Transfiguration (Mt 17), where he becomes physically luminous. Blindingly bright. And this is before the Resurrection. So he always (as of the Incarnation) had that capacity. Interestingly, this incident is accompanied by the Shekinah or glory-cloud. 

ii) We have his appearance to St. Paul (Acts 9). This could be a subjective vision. However, it may be an objective vision. Once again, there's intense luminosity. That's reminiscent of the Transfiguration. So this may well be a case where Jesus puts in a physical appearance.

iii) Then you have the Christophany in Rev 1. This could be a subjective vision. But maybe not.

The sword-like tongue suggests figurative imagery. That might imply a subjective vision. 

On the other hand, that might be a figurative description which has a literal analogue. Given the associated imagery, it's reminiscent of the fiery cherubic sword in Gen 3:24. 

The white hair might be a symbol of purity and holiness. But in context it could just as well or better reflect his luminosity. Indeed, you already have the connection between whiteness and brightness in the Transfiguration. 

iv) As commentators note, the imagery in Rev 1 has its counterparts in the visions of Ezekiel and Daniel. Among other things, their visions and/or theophanies combine elements of the Shekinah or glory-cloud and a mobile throne. 

This is sometimes how God appears to prophets on earth. God comes to them in the Shekinah, seated on a throne, surrounded by cherubim. It's a miniature throne-room. A microcosm of heaven descending (as it were) to earth. 

The Translation of Elijah (2 Kgs 2:10) is similar, but in the opposite direction. 

v) This, in turn, helps to flesh out Acts 1:9-11. The return of Christ will reverse the Ascension. As I read it, the Ascension involves Christ levitating above the disciples, at which point the glory-cloud envelopes him. The the glory-cloud passes out of sight. That doesn't necessarily mean it flies away. It may simply vanish. 

vi) For modern readers who've been conditioned by science fiction movies and TV dramas, these Biblical descriptions are apt to trigger associations with wormholes and flying saucers. Of course, that's anachronistic. 

You even have UFO religions, where people think theophanies and angelophanies were really about aliens and spacecraft. On this theory, ancient observers didn't know what they were seeing, so they described what they saw in culturally available categories.

Without taking time to discuss all that's wrong with that, I'd simply point out that the logic is easily reversible. Modern readers are reinterpreting apparitions in the cultural categories available to them. When they read accounts of apparitions, whether in Scripture, church history, or elsewhere, they translate or recast these descriptions in the ufological conventions of science fiction films. Flying saucers. Wormholes connecting parallel dimensions. That's an overlay imposed on the phenomenon rather than derived from the phenomenon.  

BTW, here's a witty critique of urological interpretations of Ezekiel:

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/references-and-transcripts/ezekiels-wheels/