The Coming of Christ The King

No subject has caused more controversy among students of eschatology than the future coming of the King. It may not appear to be of great importance to most professing Christians, but diligent students of Scripture will find it to be one that boggles their minds. Therefore, zealous Christians must learn that the subject involves Israel, the times of the Gentiles, the first advent of Jesus Christ, His death for the chosen Jews and Gentiles, the assembly Christ is building, the rapture of the assembly, the great tribulation, the kingdom established by Christ at His second advent, and eternity.

The sign of Christ’s coming to consummate the present age was of the greatest interest to the disciples in the Olivet discourse: “And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” (Matt. 24:3 NASB). True eschatology is concerned with the expectation of Jesus Christ. That is the reason Matthew 23 concludes with, “BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!” (NASB). The coming of the Lord is celebrated with praise. The double negative ou me in Matthew 23:39 is misinterpreted by most translations. The double negative gives stronger emphasis to the negative: “For I am saying to you, you may by no means [ou me] see Me from now until [predictive time word] you say, Blessed is the One coming in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39—translation). There is not only a negative but also a positive side to this verse. The positive side means Israel will experience the blessing of restoration at Christ’s second advent and then will permanently praise the King of kings and Lord of lords. (See Rom. 11; Rev. 7.) The eternal covenant of grace guarantees the fulfillment of this prediction (Rom. 11:1, 2; Heb. 13:20, 21).

The meaning of the Greek word parousia is of utmost importance in the study of the Olivet discourse. Three things should be considered: (1) What is the meaning of parousia? (2) How is the word used in the New Testament? (3) How do Biblical scholars interpret the word?

The meaning of the noun parousia in the NASB translation in II Corinthians 10:10 and Philippians 2:12 is presence. In all the other 22 references it is translated coming. It denotes both an “arrival” and a “consequent (following as an effect or result) presence with”—the arrival of the one coming. The English word “coming” does not fully express the meaning of the coming of the Lord as well as the Greek word parousia. Matthew used the word parousia four times in the Olivet discourse. Mark and Luke used the verb erchomai.

The parousia of Matthew 24 has in view the coming of the Son of Man to deal with conditions on earth. Judgment and carnage are related to the parousia of the Son of Man. The first advent of the Son of Man was “to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28 NASB). He “did not come to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12:47 NASB). However, at the parousia of the Son of Man of Matthew 24:27, He will come to judge because all judgment is committed to Him (John 5:22). To Israel, Christ is the Son of Man because He is the Son of David and the seed of Abraham (Rom. 1:3, 4; Gal. 3:16).

There are three major classifications where the noun parousia is used: (1) The references where the noun is applied to the title “Son of Man” are restricted to the Olivet discourse written by Matthew. Since the Olivet discourse concerns Israel, the title “Son of Man” is significant. The Son of Man is coming to deal with conditions on earth that are related to Israel. This coming will be not only an arrival, but also the Son of Man’s presence in judgment. (2) The titles “Christ,” “Lord Jesus,” and “Lord” are applied to the assembly or to saints in general (I Cor. 15:23; I Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; II Thess. 2:1; James 5:7, 8; I John 2:28). (3) The titles “Lord Jesus Christ” and “day of God” are applied to judgment and the establishment of the kingdom (II Pet. 1:16; 3:12).

Many believe there is no secret parousia for the saints and that Christ will not come to them as a thief (I Thess. 5:4). They say believers should be ready for it whenever it comes, and they should be able to interpret the signs of its approach. They accuse those who believe in a secret rapture of surrendering their belief in the rapture at the any-moment principle by attempting to prove by signs that the signless and any-moment rapture must be near at hand.

Many historicists interpret the parousia of Christ in judgment on the Jewish nation as ending one age and bringing another into existence. They say the disciples were not asking about two different events that would be separated by two thousand years or more. To them, the “sign of His coming” (Matt. 24:3) was the same as the “sign when these things are about to take place” of Luke 21:7. Furthermore, they say the disciples were referring to their age, which came to an end in 70 A.D., and not to the “church” age of today. The disciples remembered that Christ said He would come in their lifetime (Matt. 16:28). Hence, to them, the new age is the spiritual Messianic Kingdom.

In contrast to the historicist belief, the Jewish age is not the “church” (assembly) age. Therefore, the time of the great tribulation can never be the assembly age. Furthermore, the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. is not the final judgment on Israel. Hence, the parousia cannot be restricted to 70 A.D. The rule of the Gentiles will terminate with Christ’s coming in power and great glory.

Amillennialists interpret the word parousia as not teaching a period of time between two stages of Christ’s coming—a coming for and a coming with the saints. They not only deny a literal coming of Christ to establish a kingdom on the earth, but they also affirm the parousia is the end of the world (II Pet. 3:7-10), the end of time (I Pet. 4:7; I Cor. 1: 7, 8), the resurrection of the dead (John 6:40), the final judgment (Matt. 25:31; John 12:48; II Thess. 1:5-10), the church/kingdom delivered unto the Father (Luke 22:29; I Cor. 15:20-28), and then heaven (Phil. 3:20; I Pet. 1:4; II Pet. 3:13). Concerning the Olivet discourse, amillennialists believe the parousia of Christ as the Son of Man was to destroy Jerusalem, thus ending the old economy and ushering in the new. They also say the Olivet discourse has figures and symbols of Divine acts that effect great changes in the world, but they are not to be taken literally.

Realized millennialists differ from amillennialists. They feel amillennialists have been too negative; whereas, realized millennialists are positive. They affirm that the task of amillennialists is not to explain away the millennium but to explain it. Since it is a non-utopian type of millennium, they say one must make a distinction between realized fulfilled eschatological prophecy and unrealized unfulfilled eschatological prophecy. Realized millennialists believe the perfect age will follow the present non-utopian millennium. They claim that Satan’s temporary restraint in the realized millennium will give way to his destruction by the brightness of Christ’s presence.

The realized millennial view would make the millennium a present reality instead of a future hope. However, hope is based on the past because its foundation is in God’s eternal covenant of grace. It is confirmed in the Person and work of Jesus Christ at His first advent. The final confirmation and realization of hope looks by faith to Christ’s second advent and His kingdom (II Tim. 4:1). Hope is entertained and expressed in the absence of the Redeemer. That is the reason Paul said, “For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one also hope for what he sees?” (Rom. 8:24 NASB).

Post-tribulation rapture premillennialists believe there is no evidence that the Greek noun parousia points to a pre-tribulation rapture. Their opinion is that there are only two events in Matthew 24, which are the destruction of Jerusalem and the parousia of the Son of Man who will consummate the age. They also exclude any two-phase coming, one for the saints and the other with the saints; therefore, they eliminate any idea of a secret rapture. They go so far as to think parousia is improperly translated. They think the word means to be bodily present, to be alongside of, or to arrive back to a designated place (II Cor. 10:10; Phil. 2:12). They also affirm the proper translation in Matthew 24:27, 37, and 39 is presence. They use I Corinthians 15:23-25 and Revelation 20:12 to teach (1) Christ’s resurrection is the first fruits, (2) those who are Christ’s at His coming, and (3) then comes the end—the rest of the dead. They adamantly affirm there is no evidence that parousia points to a pre-tribulation rapture.

Contrary to these variant views, an examination of the word parousia evidences a special significance when speaking of the second coming of Jesus Christ. This event is the hope of Christians: “For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence [emprosthen, which means before or in the presence of] of our Lord Jesus at His coming? For you are our glory and joy” (I Thess. 2:19, 20 NASB). The noun parousia is translated “coming.” This verse points to a particular mode (manner of existence) of the presence of Christ. Christians acknowledge Christ’s presence now (Matt. 28:20; Heb. 13:5), but there is a difference between Christ’s spiritual presence—presence by His Spirit—and His physical presence (I John 3:2; Rev. 1:7).

Invisible presence by the Spirit and visible presence differ in the parousia (presence, coming, or advent) of Christ. Although Christians believe and know Christ, there is a condition of seeing and not seeing: “and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory” (I Pet. 1:8 NASB). With reference to Christ’s ascension, “they also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11 NASB). Paul spoke of seeing Christ during the same dispensation of His personal absence: (1) “…But, now we do not yet see all things subjected to Him” (Heb. 2:8 NASB), (2) “…knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord” (II Cor. 5:6 NASB), and (3) “we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord” (II Cor. 5:8 NASB).

Presence and absence are mutually exclusive terms in human existence. However, in the Christian’s relationship with Jesus Christ, the analogy breaks down. The mode of His presence in the parousia is the Christian’s hope.