The Potency of a Proper Placing of the Parousia

The first thing that strikes the reader of C. Jonathin Seraiah?s chapter (chapter 6: "The Final Advent") on the Second Coming of Christ is his title: "The Final Advent." It is a title that may be in some circles of Christendom, acceptable. But it is in the opinion of this writer, biblically and theologically unacceptable. It is a title meant to separate the reader from the historical and biblical narrative of the first century parousia of Christ, thereby readying them to embrace the theory of an "advent" of Christ that is still off somewhere in the future. Mr. Seraiah refers to this second coming as a final advent. But the Bible never terms the Second Coming of Christ as a "final advent." It is referred to as His "parousia" - an arrival with a consequential presence. This is the primary Greek word used to communicate the uniqueness of what Christ Himself described His Coming to be in the writings of Matthew (24: 3, 27, 37, 39), to the Corinthians (15: 23), to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 2: 19, 3: 13, 4: 15, 5: 23, 2 Thessalonians 2: 1, & 8). The uniqueness of the word continues on in James 5: 7-9, in 2 Peter 1: 16 & 3: 4, 12. It?s final occurrence takes place in 1 John 2: 28.

The phrase "Final Advent" indicates that the one that took place in AD 70 (a "type" of a coming that Seraiah and those of like mind does admit to) was in itself not the last one. We are to look forward to yet another. A "third coming" if you will.

The dictionary entry of the word "advent" in Webster?s New World Dictionary of the American Language - Second College Edition, says that while the word does refer to "a coming", (the Latin "advenire", to come), it?s primary definition is stated thusly: "The period including the first four Sundays just before Christmas." The last two entries do make reference to its use in not only the birth of Christ, but to the Second Coming of Christ as an arrival or coming. We can observe that to term the parousia of Christ as an "Advent", leads to other understandings of the word that are separated from Biblical context?s that point to a first century return. We therefore do not recommend it?s use when discussing the Second Coming, or parousia of Christ, as it is a word that is outside of scriptural authority that encourages a misrepresentation of the Biblical parousia as we hope to demonstrate in this chapter.

The subject of the parousia of Christ needs to be discussed within the realm of the presentation of the Biblical subject and that means using the Biblical words to so describe it. Within the word parousia (the Biblical word), we are directed to see the Second Coming as an event prophesied to occur within the confines of the first century and in particular, within the generation of people that Christ Himself had ministered to while He was initially upon the earth.

We will now deal with the specific statements of Mr. Seraiah as he attempts to defend a still future "advent" that is separated not only from the scriptures, but also from the historical confines of the first century. The first thing we notice as we move through chapter 6 of Seraiah?s book, is that when he discusses the subject of Christ?s Second Coming, there seems to be a serious ignoring of the primary texts of scripture as they relate directly to Christ?s own teachings about the timing and nature of His parousia. There is virtually no discussion outside of the occasional citation as to what Christ meant by what He said in passages like Matthew 10: 23,

"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: For verily I say unto you, you shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come."

We will not go into great detail here as to the contextual meaning of Christ?s statement as we have already done so in our book "The Consummation of the Christ: A Reformed and Preterist Analogy of the 70^th Week of the Prophet Daniel", and we would refer the interested reader to that source. We will note this however: Christ is speaking directly in this context to His 12 disciples. He is instructing them on the finer points of evangelizing the land of Palestine, specifically Judea. As they go He tells them that they can expect to be persecuted for what they teach about Him. As they are fleeing from their persecutors, Christ comforts them with a promise. As they run for their lives, they can be assured that they will not have gone over all the towns in the land of Israel before He comes back. Does the reader believe that this understanding is reading too much into the text? We do not. This is the outcome when taking into consideration the immediate and wider view of the context of chapter ten of Matthew?s Gospel. Who is Christ speaking this word to? Is it not to the twelve in the first century scenario of Palestine? If this passage is not a reference to Christ?s own return, the parousia, then what was it? How was this fulfilled in the lives of the historical twelve disciples? Clearly Christ asserts to his beloved apostles that His return would somehow interrupt the persecution that they would be suffering at that time. Let?s consider another.

In Matthew 16: 27-28, Christ is again speaking to the twelve this time in the area of Caesarea Philippi. Peter has just made his statement as to the identity of Christ. (16: 13-17). As Christ continues to speak to the twelve (and not to anyone else in a supposed futuristic context), He says:

"For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward everyman according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16: 27- 28)

Christ here refers to Himself as the "Son of Man" just as He did in 10: 23 when He told them they would not get to all the cities in Israel before He, the "Son of Man" be come. These two verses not only give us the "timing" of the parousia of Christ, but they also speak to the "nature" of His coming. Note verse 27: "For the son of Man shall come?" The Greek word here translated "shall", is the word MELLO. It is a word that describes the certainty of something that is about to occur. It is a primary word of imminency. The text should rightly be translated: "For the Son of Man is about to come?" Amazing isn?t it? Christ speaks to His disciples about the nearness and soon-ness of His return and He had not even gone to the cross, suffered and been raised from the dead yet. Why did Christ choose to use such a word as mello? The best answer to give to such a question is to research all the places in the New Testament (in particular, all the eschatological references) where mello occurs. The reader will be quite surprised afterwards as to how soon the writers of the New Testament expected Christ?s parousia to occur. It is no wonder, for it was Christ Himself that emphasized the timing and nature of His coming that led the authors of the New Testament (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to use this interesting word of imminence. But let us continue with the exegesis of Matthew 16: 27 & 28.

After Christ tells His disciples He is about to come (timing), He next discusses the "nature" of said coming. Notice the three events that are to take place at his "about to" coming: "For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father, with His angels, and then He shall reward every man according to his works."

Clearly Christ expected that when He returned, these events would in fact transpire. It is interesting that these very same three events are listed by Christ as to what would happen when He returned and the Judgment of the Sheep and Goat Nations would occur. Of course, all futurists see this transpiring at the parousia of Christ. So do all Preterists. It?s just that the nearness of the event is demonstrated by Christ?s use of the word "mello", but that is not the only time reference given. Before we give the next time reference as to the "when" of Christ?s parousia, notice these events in Matthew 25: 31ff?

"When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory: And before Him shall be gathered all nations?"

Matthew 16: 27	Matthew 25: 31
"Son of Man"	"Son of Man"
"The glory of his Father"	"Come in His glory"
"With His angels"	"All the holy angels with Him"
"Reward every man" (Judgment)	"sit upon the throne" (Judgment)

Clearly, what Christ is describing in 16: 27 He is also referring to in 25: 31. This is the Reformed hermeneutic of the analogy of faith in demonstration. Scripture comments upon itself, allowing us to come to the correct conclusions.

There is further evidence that these events would happen within the generation of the disciples. In Matthew 16: 28 we read:

"Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

The ones " standing" in front of Christ when He said this, were the twelve. He did not say that "all" who were standing there would be alive when He returned, but only "some." He said that "some would not taste of death." There is probably no one that doubts the plain meaning of these words: Some would be alive when He returned; others would not.

"?(T)ill they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." The Lord Jesus just described what the coming in His kingdom would be like in Matthew 25: 31. My dear reader: If all the scripture that we had to demonstrate the Preterist view of prophecy were these passages that we have evidenced for you thus far, it would be enough to ask the question: "Did Christ mean this or not? Is Christ a lying prophet or was He telling us the truth? Did the Bible lie here, or did perhaps the ?inspired? writers of the New Testament just get it wrong?" Anything less than a simple acceptance of the plain statements from the lips of Christ leads us to an errant faith, an errant Christ, and an errant Bible. Christ MUST be believed in these and all matters that He spoke to. Are we of the Preterist conviction simply interpreting these passages wrong? There has been no one yet who has crested the eschatological horizon that has offered any kind of a legitimate and exegetically comprehensive alternative that takes all the factors here presented into consideration. Including Mr. Seraiah.

Are there other passages that evidence the same confidence in their reporting of a first century return of Christ? To be sure, but as our space in this work is limited, let us refer the interested reader to the following passages that demonstrate Christ as teaching that He would in fact return within the confines of the generation that He ministered to.

Matthew 24: 34 - "Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION (emphasis -author) shall not pass till all these things (including verses 29-31) shall be fulfilled." (Lk. 21: 22)

Matthew 26: 64 - "Jesus saith unto him (Caiaphas -author), ?Thou hast said: Nevertheless I say unto you (YOU, Caiaphas. -author) Hereafter shall YE (emphasis -author) see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven."

Luke 21: 22 - "For these be the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled"

Luke 21: 27-28 - "And shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up (who was to look up? The disciples that Jesus was speaking this to on the Mount of Olives. Of what sense does it make to have Christ tell the first century believers to look up to see the Son of Man coming in clouds with power and great glory, if it was not going to happen to them? -author) for YOUR (emphasis -author) redemption draweth nigh."

John 21: 21-22 - "Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, ?Lord, and what shall this man do?? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come what is that to thee? Follow thou me.?"

In light of these few truths, let us continue to consider some of Mr. Seraiah?s statements that are in contradiction to the Lord Jesus and to the writers of the New Testament regarding the Lord?s parousia.

It is also of note that on Page 169 of Mr. Seraiah?s book, he places himself squarely at odds with the very confessions of faith that he has sworn to uphold as a minister in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals. He says:

"In the first century it was a coming (italics -author) to vindicate Christ and show that He was reigning over all (Matt. 24: 30). Christ did bring judgment against the apostate Jews, but it was a vindicating judgment. (Italics -author) When, however Jesus comes to bring Final Judgment on all (read, a third judgment, or a third coming -author), the primary focus will not be His ?coming? but rather resurrection and judgment." (Seraiah, Pg. 196)

This is quite interesting how Seraiah separates the "coming" of Christ to bring judgment against the apostate Jews, and at the same time, eliminates the corresponding resurrections and judgments that the scripture teaches will happen along with the coming of Christ. We Preterists do not teach the non-creedal presumption that Christ will come a third time as Mr. Seraiah does. Rather, we agree with the historic church creeds that the parousia of Christ was to only occur once. We assent to the biblical fact of it, but we question the creedalistic presuppositions that have lead to a wrong understanding of the "timing" of it. The Bible teaches specifically that when Christ returned in His Coming, that the previously mentioned judgments and resurrections would occur. Case in point:

Matthew 16: 27-28 (cmp/ w Matt. 25: 31ff) - "For the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father, with His angels, and then He shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Please notice the italicized portion (Greek: MELLO) of the above verse of scripture. If Christ is going to reward every man at His coming, then the giving of rewards necessitates judgment. Verse 28 verifies that this coming along with the rewarding of individuals occurs during the lifetime of some of the first century believers.

Acts 17: 31 - "Because He hath appointed a day in the which He is about to (Greek: MELLO) judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained?"

The judgment that comes with Christ?s parousia was about to (imminent) occur within the generation of the apostle Paul who spoke these words.

Acts 24: 15, 25 - "And have hope towards God which they themselves also allow, that there is about to be (MELLO) a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust?And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment about to be, Felix trembled and answered?"

2 Timothy 4: 1 - "I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who is about to judge the living and the dead (when? -author): at His appearing and His kingdom."

Is it not clear that the apostle believed that the resurrection and the corresponding judgments would in fact occur at the "appearing" and consequential "kingdom" of the Lord Jesus Christ? If it was "about to" happen then when Paul wrote to Timothy before AD 70, then how can it be believed that some 2000 years later it still has yet to take place? What does this do to the perspicuity of scripture? If the Lord Jesus, the apostle Paul and the other writers of the New Testament were wrong about the timing of His coming, then how are we to understand the doctrinal implications of the possibility of an "inspired" author being essentially in error when it comes to the writing and enunciating of the timing of the parousia of the Lord, if in fact said coming is still off in the future somewhere? The Preterist view is the ONLY view that takes these types of critical inquiries into consideration and is able to effectively deal with them while maintaining the Reformed and Biblical doctrine of the inspiration of the text. Note imminency passages such as: James 5: 8-9, 1 Peter 4: 5-7. How about Revelation 22: 12 in this light:

"And behold I come QUICKLY (emphasis -author), and my reward is with me to give every man according as his work shall be."

Now compare Revelation 22: 12 with Matthew 16: 27?"For the Son of man is about to come?and He shall reward every man according to his works." (Matthew 16: 28 says that this would happen within the lifetime of some of the apostles). Note the "reward" factors in the Judgment of the Sheep and Goat nations. (Matthew 25: 31ff) As we have previously pointed out the description of the coming in glory, with the angels, and bringing of judgments are the same.

Furthermore, the apostle Paul taught explicitly that the resurrections would occur at the parousia of Christ which we have already demonstrated would happen in the lifetime of those whom Christ ministered to in the first century. When speaking of the timing of the general resurrection coinciding with the imminent parousia, Paul states:

"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ?s at His coming." (1Corinthians 15: 22-23)

The CRE, (Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals) of which Mr. Seraiah is a member, maintains that each of its churches adopt at least one of the major historical confessions of the church of Christ as its own. None of the confessions, (Westminster Confession of Faith, The American Westminster Confession of Faith, the Three Forms of Unity, The Belgic Confession, The London Baptist Confession, The Savoy Declaration and the Reformed Evangelical Confession) so listed on the CRE web site, (www.crepres.org) allow any of its members to believe in a "third coming" of the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth. Yet this is precisely what Mr. Seraiah and others who hold to his unique view of "preterism", want to have the freedom to believe. Mr. Seraiah has placed himself squarely outside of the perimeters of the very confessions he deems to hold to. We wonder if anyone within his denomination is pointing this out to him.

Partial futurists love to use Acts 1: 9-11 against we Preterists. They believe that their use of it shuts down any argument regarding a first century parousia of Christ. Mr. Seraiah is one of those who believe this. First Seraiah misrepresents Preterists who use this passage to demonstrate a first century parousia.

"Though pantelists (read, Preterists -author) attempt various exegetical moves to prove that this passage is speaking of Jesus? coming against the Jews, their attempts are embarrassing." (Seraiah, Pg. 170).

Embarrassing? Let?s see who is embarrassed here. So, Preterists do not want to see Acts 1: 9-11 used as a reference involving Christ?s coming to judge the Jewish nation? Let us consider if His coming in or with clouds (Acts 1: 9-11) has anything to do with Christ?s coming in AD 70.

"And when He had spoken these things, while they beheld, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, SHALL SO COME IN LIKE MANNER AS YOU HAVE SEEN HIM GO INTO HEAVEN." (Acts 1: 9-11 -emphasis -author)

"How" was Christ taken up into heaven? The text says "?a cloud received Him out of their sight." What was the "manner" in which He went into heaven? "?a cloud received Him out of their sight." How did the apostles see Christ go into heaven? "?a cloud received Him out of their sight." Dear reader, this passage is not difficult to understand, as its meaning is plain on its face. It is only when partial futurists handle this passage, that because of their theological prejudices which precede them into the exegetical work, they find themselves adding and saying various things that the text itself does not say as a means of determining the meaning of "how" Christ would return.

Now as to Mr. Seraiah?s idea that the coming that Acts 1: 9-11 describes is NOT the coming to the Jews for judgment at AD 70 (Pg. 170), please read the above passage of Acts 1: 9-11 again and notice that the "way" in which Christ is said to return is the "way" in which He departed into heaven from the ascension - in a cloud. So is Christ?s parousia. He will come in or with clouds. This is precisely what all the passages that speak of a cloud-coming-Christ point to as the final and only Second Coming of Christ that the Bible speaks of. The partial preterists cannot lay claim to the Acts 1: 9-11 passage as pertaining only to the AD 70 sort-of-coming to just judge Israel. Neither can it be used to support a still future third coming which Mr. Seraiah holds to.

Relative to the parousia or Second Coming of Christ to the earth, we find the word, "cloud" or "clouds" mentioned a total of 12 times in the scriptures. Within the context of each of these times, there is no reason to believe that they are not all speaking of the exact same event. In other words, we do not find the fictitious idea that the writers of the New Testament ever spoke of a coming in judgment on Israel only in AD 70 (as the partial futurists affirm), and a coming at the end of time, or a third coming of Christ.

"And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." -Luke 21: 27.

"And when He had spoken these things, while they beheld, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight?this same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as you have seen Him go into heaven." - Acts 1: 9, 11b.

"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven: And then shall all the tribes (of Israel -author) of the ?land? mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." - Matthew 24: 30 (Mark 13: 26)

"Behold He cometh with clouds and every eye shall see Him, and (KAI - ?even?) they which pierced him, and all kindreds (PHULAI - ?tribes?) of the ?land? shall wail because of Him. Even so, Amen." - Revelation 1: 7

"Jesus saith unto him, ?Thou hast said: Nevertheless I say unto you, hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.? " - Matthew 26: 64 (Mark 14: 62)

"Then we which are alive and remain, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord." - 1 Thessalonians 4: 17

An unbiased reading of the passages so listed when checked against their contexts will reveal that they are all speaking of the one and same Second Coming of Christ and not of a non-creedalistic and fictitious sort-of-coming in AD 70, and then a final "third coming" at some end of history. This "third coming" of the Lord is a view which no creed of orthodox Christianity will allow. We see then that it is the Preterists and not the partial futurists (partial pantelists, since Mr. Seraiah is fond of the term) who are closest to affirming the creedal Second Coming of Christ, rather than a third coming which no creed or confession will allow.

Next, Mr. Seraiah tries to convince his readers of the notion of an "end of time parousia" of Christ by taking them to the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Specifically, 1 Corinthians15: 23-25, which reads:

"But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ?s at His coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet."

The reason Mr. Seraiah does not accurately exegete these passages in accordance with their historical, grammatical, and comparative sense, is that he apparently does not find it necessary to consider the statements of the Lord Jesus Himself in regards to the timing of His parousia. Instead, Mr. Seraiah reads into the text a presupposition of futurism which determines his outcome instead of simply letting the whole of scripture on the subject of the parousia control his conclusions. Christ believed and taught that He would return to the same first century people He had ministered to, including some of the same people who were alive at the time of His first coming (Matthew 10: 23, 16: 27-28). He taught that He would return to the same generation He ministered to (Matthew 24: 34). We have seen that he had told Caiaphas that he would see the Christ sitting on the right hand of God and coming in the clouds of heaven (Matthew 26: 64). That John the beloved disciple might still be alive at the return of Christ to the earth. (John 21: 22) These are incontrovertible passages that make absolute statements as to the timing of the parousia. The reason many do not like these passages is that they have accepted and embraced a presuppositional view that demands that when Christ returns all of earthly history must come to a halt. It is because the framers of the major creeds of Christendom simply took the futuristic statements of the New Testament writers at face value without considering things like audience relevance, time statements, and the like, that we have ended up still waiting for a parousia. Which, if it did not occur when Christ said it would in the first century, frankly makes liars out of Christ and the writers of the New Testament. This is the importance of embracing the Biblical, Preterist view.

Once it has been established and accepted that Christ meant exactly what he said relative to His Second Coming, then all these supposedly "troubling" passages like the one we are now dealing with (1 Corinthians 15: 23-25), fall into place naturally and effortlessly.

"But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits, afterward, they that are Christ?s at His coming." - 1 Corinthians 15: 23

Clearly there should be no real argument as to the issues involved here in this passage. At the Second Coming, or parousia of Christ, the resurrection of the dead occurs. We must note here, that the Greek word that Paul uses for "coming" is in fact the word "Parousia." The Greek word, "parousia" occurs 24 times in the Greek New Testament. Seventeen times out of the 24 it occurs in passages dealing with the Second Coming of Christ. This passage of Paul?s is one of them. Defined by all lexicons, a "parousia" means, "an arrival with a consequential presence."

All of the "Christ coming" occurrences of the word parousia are found in imminency passages. In the following passages where parousia is found, please notice who the intended audience is who will experience Christ?s parousia. Remember whoever experiences the parousia, must of necessity experience the resurrection as well. (1 Corinthians 15: 23)

"And as He sat upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples came unto Him privately saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? And what shall be the sign of thy coming (parousia) and of the end of the age." - Matthew 24: 3

"For as the lightening cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man be." - Matthew 24: 27

Partial preterists use this passage to describe the coming-in-judgment-on-Israel-only view in AD 70. But this will not work, as the same parousia that is used here in Matthew 24: 27, is also used in 1 Corinthians 15: 23! (The resurrection must occur with the AD 70 coming. Partial preterists are on the horns of an insoluble dilemma in that they must prove that the Bible speaks of "two" parousia?s! One at AD 70, and another at the end of time. Clearly the text of the New Testament insists that the general resurrection must occur at the parousia. There is only one parousia, and it took place at AD 70.)

"But as the days of Noah were, so also shall the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man be." - Matthew 24: 37

"And knew not until he flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming (parousia) of the Son of Man be." - Matthew 24: 39

The word that refers to Christ?s arrival with a consequential presence occurs four times in Matthew?s Gospel. All four times it is directly related to answering the question of the disciples, "?what shall be the sign of thy coming (parousia) and the end of the age?"

One of the biggest problems that the partial futurists have with these parousia passages in Matthew 24, is the fact that the nearness of the occurrence of the parousia is directed precisely to the lifetime and experience of the disciples themselves. Notice the consistent use of pronouns that Christ uses to tie the audience relevancy thoughts together.

"And YE shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, see that YE be not troubled?" - 24: 6

"Then shall they deliver YOU up to be afflicted, and shall kill YOU, and YE shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." - 24: 9 (Very close to "And YE shall be hated of all men for my name's sake, but he that endures to the END shall be saved.)

"But when they persecute YOU in this city, flee YE into another: For verily I say unto YOU, YE shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man be come." - Matthew 10: 22-23)

"When YE therefore shall see the abomination, spoken of by Daniel the prophet?" - 24: 15 (Which "abomination", Luke informs us is nothing less that the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem during the three and a half year siege from the Spring of AD 66 to the Summer of AD 70 - Luke 21: 20).

"So likewise YE, when YE shall see all these things, know that it (His parousia -author) is near, even at the doors." - 24: 33

"Verily I say unto YOU, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." - 24: 34

Just put yourself in Peter?s or John?s sandals for a moment and ask yourself; "If Jesus was speaking to me (as opposed to some far off group of people) when he was telling me (Peter) that I would see and experience all these things including His coming in power and glory (V.'s 29-31) why would I think He was referring to some later generation of people?" You wouldn?t unless you were taught to think that!

There are those within the partial futurist camp that want to see the Olivet Discourse divided up into two sections: Namely, the first half from chapter 24: 3- 35 dealing simply with a coming in judgment in AD 70, and a still yet future- to- us judgment at the end of time from chapter 24: 36-25: 46. They do not just want to see it this way, they NEED to see it this way. Presuppositional exegesis demands it!

Let?s talk about those pesky pronouns again. It?s one thing for the partial futurist to be able to bow to the pronouns in V?s 3-34 as pertaining to the Disciples of Christ?s generation experiencing the events so designated. It is another thing entirely for the same pronouns to be found in 24: 36 through 25: 46. This is true IF it is the intention of the partial preterists to insist that the second half of the Olivet Discourse (24: 36-25:46) does not include the experience of the first century disciples, but is rather the experience of Christians alive at a fictitious end of time. The narrative of the Olivet Discourse demands that the reader understand that Christ is talking to the same disciples in 24: 36-25: 46, that He was speaking to in 24: 3-35.

Before this however, please notice that the disciples ask Christ in 24: 3, "?and what shall be the sign of thy parousia?" First Christ tells them in the "first half" (V.?s 3-35), in verse 27 in the midst of all of those pronouns: "Behold, I have told YOU before?" -(V. 25) "Wherefore If they shall say unto YOU?" - (V. 26.) "For as the lightening cometh out of the east and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the parousia of the Son of Man be." - V. 27. Clearly then, Christ is informing the disciples that they themselves would see and experience the parousia - Second Coming - in their generation.

The Greek word parousia occurs two other times in the Olivet Discourse in the "second half" of the discourse in V.?s 37 & 39.

"But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the parousia of the Son of Man be." - 24: 37

"And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the parousia of the Son of Man be." - 24: 39.

Question: If Christ?s intention was to teach the disciples that His coming in judgment in AD 70 would occur only to Israel, and His Second Coming involving the resurrections and the judgments would occur at the end of time, then why did Christ tell the disciples that they themselves and their generation, would experience the parousia - first and second half of the Olivet Discourse (V.?s 3 & 27, 37 & 39) which said parousia also must include the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15: 23)? Confusing, isn?t it? It?s only confusing because partial preterists (and other futurists) refuse to take the scriptures at face value. Instead, they have changed the scriptures to teach that there are two Second Coming- parousia?s. All of this is done so that the doctrine of a still-future-to-us- third coming can be maintained, and the uninspired creeds and confessions can go on unchallenged. And they call us heretics?

As has been demonstrated, Christ used the Greek word parousia to describe His Second Coming at the end of the events of AD 66-70 in both the first half and the second half of the Olivet Discourse. And what about all those pronouns that pointed to the disciples in the first half of the Olivet Discourse? They exist in the second half as well, still pertaining to those same first century disciples:

There is no indication whatsoever that Christ has switched from talking to His first century disciples, to the believers of some era before the "end of time."

"Therefore be YE also ready: For in such an hour as YE think not, the Son of Man cometh." - 24: 44

"Verily I say unto YOU, that he shall make him ruler over all his goods." - 24: 47

"Watch therefore for YE know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of Man cometh." - 25: 13

In 1 Thessalonians 4: 15 the apostle Paul, taking his cue from the fact of the teaching of the Lord Jesus regarding the imminency of His return to the same generation He ministered to, says this concerning Paul?s and the Thessalonians involvement with the parousia of Christ:

"For this WE say unto YOU by the word of the Lord, that WE which are alive and remain unto the parousia of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep."

Notice the audience whom he is speaking to. Not some far off group of people, but the first century Thessalonians. Then Paul says that he believes that if he survives (after all someone was always making attempts on his life), he would experience the Second Coming of the Lord: "?WE which are alive and remain unto the coming (parousia) of the Lord?"

Another 1 Thessalonians passage where Paul expresses expectation and wants to commit that sense of expectancy to the Thessalonians is located in 1 Thessalonians 5: 23:

"(A)nd the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God that your whole spirit, soul and body, be preserved blameless unto the parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Read this passage again carefully. Knowing all that we have discovered regarding the teaching of Christ's expectation of His parousia in the first century, is not Paul simply following the teachings of his King regarding the nearness of the coming of Christ? He actually prays that not just the believer?s spirit and soul be kept blameless, but that the believers BODY be "preserved" until the parousia of the Lord. How could Paul pray a prayer like that if the coming of the Lord was not to be within the first century? How could Paul ask God to preserve someone?s body if the coming of the Lord was thousands of years away? Preserved from what? Death by persecution no doubt. The point being is that Paul?s request for the preservation of THEIR bodies (the bodies of the first century Thessalonians) points the reader toward the understanding that the Lord Jesus was to return in His parousia while the generation of the Thessalonians were alive. No other answer satisfies. How can the parousia be off thousands of years away if Paul is asking for their bodies to be preserved? You cannot make this preservation some allusion to a resurrected body because that will not fit the context. The Greek word here for "preserve" is TEREO. It means to guard carefully. The idea being so that nothing untoward happens to it. This further cannot be a reference to a future resurrected body because the resurrection occurs AT the parousia (1 Corinthians15: 23) and this text reads: "?body be preserved blameless UNTO the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Greek word Paul uses for "until" is EN. EN is a preposition that means: "?of the space in which something is found." (Arndt and Gingrich, Pg. 258, 1979) The English word "until" is the perfect word to use in translating this preposition. The syntax under consideration demands that we understand the "preserving" to be up to and until the parousia. Clearly the resurrection is not in view here, but the Second Coming of Christ in the first century is!

Other parousia passages that teach an imminency of first century experience are: 2 Thessalonians 2: 1, James 5: 7-9, 2 Peter 3: 12, 1 John 2: 28.

On page 175 of Mr. Seraiah?s book, he makes an interesting concession statement relative to the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18.

"One of the difficulties with interpreting this passage is that Paul here uses terms that are similar to those used at times to refer to the coming of Christ against Jerusalem."

May it be simply pointed out, that the terms are similar because HE IS speaking of the same thing.

Next, Seraiah quotes the 1 Thessalonian passage at length (1Thessalonians 4: 13-18) and then makes some astounding statements.

"Note first that there are no true time references. We say no ?true? time references because some wish to say that Paul?s reference to ?we who are alive? (in v. 15) means that Paul expected to be alive when Christ came." (Pg. 176)

In other words, Seraiah wants the reader to believe that when Paul included himself as one who could possibly be alive at the return of Christ?s, (note that Seraiah does not dispute the plain statement of Paul?s expectation), that Paul really didn?t mean what he plainly said, because in Seraiah?s view that just can?t be true. Read the above quote again. Seraiah says that Paul could not have meant what he said because it would mean that Paul expected the Lord to return in his generation and that just can?t be! But wait, the lack of cogent thought here just gets worse. Seraiah continues his thoughts with:

"First, the assertion that when Paul says ?we who are alive,? means that he believed he himself would be alive is doubtful. That would mean that Paul was wrong." (Ibid)

No Mr. Seraiah, it does not mean that Paul was wrong, it simply means that you are wrong. Changing the plain meaning of passages of scripture just because they do not fit your personal paradigm is an action that is without excuse. "Therefore behold I am against the prophets saith the Lord, that steal my words everyone from his neighbor." (Jeremiah 23: 30)

Seraiah continues to insist that we Preterists believe that Paul said in this passage that he would in fact be alive to see the parousia of Christ. We would not say such a thing because Paul makes no such assertion. Paul holds out for the possibility that he could be alive to experience the Second Coming because he says in 1 Thessalonians 5: 10,

"(Christ) died for US that whether WE wake (are physically alive at the coming) or sleep (Paul?s normal euphemism for physical death) WE should live together with Him."

"He (Paul -author) thus here acknowledges that he may be dead (?asleep?) when Christ comes."

"He (Paul -author) used phrases that could fit with it (the parousia -author) happening both in his lifetime or long after he died." (Ibid)

So why all the resistance on Seraiah?s part? We Preterists would basically say the same thing. Paul believed that it was possible for him to be alive when Christ returned (unless he died as a martyr or of natural causes). Seraiah considers it a possibility that Paul could have been talking about his being alive at the parousia. "?happening both in his lifetime?" (ibid)

Note first of all in this 1Thessalonians passage that the use of the Greek word parousia for the coming of Christ is at the forefront of the discussion.

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming (parousia) of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." (1 Thessalonians 4: 15)

It is critical to remember that it was Christ Himself in the Olivet Discourse which we have already referred to numerous times, who told his disciples that they would experience His parousia. (Matthew 24: 3, 27, 37, 39). Now, here is Paul writing to the Thessalonians telling them they too could also experience the parousia while still in their mortal bodies. (1 Thessalonians 5: 23) There is only one first century parousia of Christ. It was: (1) The first century "generation" coming - Matthew 24: 34. (2) The teaching of Paul that included the general resurrection that would occur at the parousia- 1 Corinthians 15: 23. (3) The belief of Paul that some of the Thessalonians would be alive to experience the parousia.- 1 Thessalonians 4: 15, 5: 23. There is only ONE parousia!

On Page 181, Seraiah continues his denial of the first century fulfillment of the parousia of Christ, this time by going to the Apostle John?s comments on the subject in 1 John 2: 28-3:3. In order to treat this text simply, we will quote the passage as Mr. Seraiah quotes it in his book. We will italicize those parts of the passage that speak to "who" it is precisely that John says will experience the events of the parousia as John describes them.

"And now little children, abide in him, so that when He appears we may have confidence and not shrink from Him in shame at His coming?See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called the children of God; and so we are. ?Beloved, we are God?s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when He appears, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure." (Seraiah, Pg. 181)

Notice first of all that the feeling of confidence that the Apostle says that the believers he is writing to will have at the Lord?s appearing and parousia.

"And little children, abide in Him, so that when He appears we may have confidence and not shrink from Him in shame at His coming." (1 John 2: 28)

Not only do John?s pronouns point to his audience as those who would experience the "appearing" of Christ, but John uses the Greek word parousia for "coming" to that same audience. Those who will have confidence and not shrink from Christ in shame will experience the parousia! Both Christ and the other apostle?s said that it would be the first century believers who would experience the parousia and not any other generation during the history of the planet. Please recall?

All the personal pronouns that Christ used to point to the first century believers as those who would experience the parousia, and in addition, His use of the Greek word parousia to describe the type of "coming" that the first century believers would experience. Just like John did here in 1 John 2: 28-3:3.

"Tell us, when shall these things be, and what shall be the sign of thy coming (parousia)?" (Matthew 24: 3)

"For as the lightening cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west, so shall also the parousia of the Son of Man be." (Matthew 24: 27)

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming (parousia) of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep." (1 Thessalonians 4: 15)

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly: and I pray God your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless unto the coming (parousia) of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thessalonians 5: 23)

"Be patient therefore brethren unto the coming (parousia) of the Lord." (James 5: 7)

So far, Christ and Paul have both instructed the believers that they spoke and wrote to that the parousia would occur in their generation. If it was not to occur in the first century, how is it that James can tell the audience he is writing to, to be patient until the parousia of the Lord if the parousia was not to occur for another two thousand or more years away? Why encourage someone to be "patient" until the parousia if they were never going to experience it in the first place? Does not this make the writers of the New Testament as well as the Holy Spirit accomplices in perpetuating a lie? "You folks be patient now waiting for the Second Coming even though it?s not going to happen in your lifetime." What kind of double-speak is this? The first century expectation flows from the rest of the consistent teaching of the New Testament in regards to the timing of the Second Coming of Christ into history.

"Be ye also patient, establish your hearts; for the coming (parousia) of the Lord draweth nigh? Behold, the judge stands before the door." (James 5: 8-9)

If "draweth nigh" or drawing near does not mean precisely what it obviously does, then communication has ceased. The Greek here is EGGIZO. Which, as it is here presented in the perfect tense yields the definition that the parousia of the Lord "has drawn near." These believers were sitting right on top of the Second Coming of Christ is what James IS clearly stating. If someone tells someone else that they are coming soon, and "soon" is supposed to be some sort of "code" for a couple thousand years later, then plain speech in communication has ceased and we are forced to look for some sort of "hidden" meaning that does not exist within the confines of Holy Scripture relative to the parousia.

When the text tells us that "the judge is standing at the door", it simply means that He is ready to begin his judgment. He sure has been at that door for a long time now if the parousia is still to occur.

Who expected to see Christ? John the apostle and those whom he was writing to. This follows right on the heels with what Christ told Peter about John possibly living until He returned in the parousia.

"Peter seeing him (John -author) saith to Jesus, ?Lord and what shall this man do?? Jesus saith unto him, ?If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me.? " (John 21: 21-22)

In light of all that we have shown the reader on the 1 John 2: 28-3:3 passage, listen now to this most incredible of all statements by Mr. Seraiah:

"1 John 2: 28 tells us little about what John believes about the ?coming? of Christ that he is referring to. There is no time reference anywhere in the verse?"(emphasis -author) {Seraiah, Pg. 183)

Did you catch that? No time reference anywhere in the verse?!?! We have demonstrated to the reader that the text is virtually one big time reference relegating the events John speaks of to the first century. But then in the rest of the sentence written by Mr. Seraiah, he explains what "he" means when he uses the phrase "time reference."

"There is no time reference anywhere in the verse; there is no mention of apostate Judaism, nor of a Judaic context of any kind." (Ibid)

So, in Mr. Seraiah?s mind, a passage can only be seen as containing time references IF that passage has mentioned a Judaistic apostasy or a Judaistic judgment. Talk about leading with a set of presuppositional requirements! But you see, Mr. Seraiah needs the reader to buy into just such a scenario, for he knows that the texts of the New Testament that speak to the Second Coming of Christ are loaded with immediate time references that point toward a first century occurrence. Seraiah needs us to accept that there was "a sort of coming" in judgment on Israel (only) in AD 70 because he MUST have a yet future "Third Coming" in order for him to remain true to the creeds that he holds to. Which said "Third Coming" leaves him hopelessly outside of creedal authority, as the creeds do not allow for a "coming" in AD 70 at all, and certainly not to a "Third Coming." It is easy for anyone to see that Mr. Seraiah prefers the eschatological futuristic statements of the creeds and confessions over the plain teaching of the scripture alone. Mr. Seraiah does not hold to the reformed doctrine of sola scriptura. He holds to the tradition of "sola creedala."

A final thought on Mr. Seraiah?s comments on the 1 John 2: 28-3:3 passage. Seraiah unwittingly traps himself with the following comment:

"What therefore does John mean when he says that ?we shall see him as he is? (1 Jn 3: 2)? John here uses a particular Greek word for ?we shall see? that he has used at other times in this letter. The same word also appears over thirty times in the gospel of John. The predominant usage by John refers to physical sight. (emphasis -author) In the first epistle of John, there is not a single reference that refers to anything other than physical sight." (Seraiah, Pg. 185)

We agree totally with Mr. Seraiah?s observations here and would remind him that when one combines the personal pronouns of "we" and "us" that are contained in the 1 John 2: 28-3:3 quote, it simply amplifies all the louder the first century expectation that John was communicating to his audience. John EXPECTED his readers to SEE Christ in their first century experience! Thank you Mr. Seraiah for your astute observation of that fact.

In the final pages of Chapter 6, Mr. Seraiah attempts to use some various passages of scripture to prove that when a promise of an event is said in the Biblical text to be "near" it can actually be quite "far" away. Case in point:

"A question that is often asked by pantelists (Preterists -author) is, ?Why do the authors of the New Testament tell their readers to wait for events that won?t take place for at least two thousand years.? " (Seraiah, Pg. 188)

Seraiah then brings up the promise of the coming of the Messiah to Adam and Eve as a supposed proof of his point. But again, we see Seraiah?s attempt simply backfiring on him.

"But can we ask here, how long did Adam and Eve wait for the coming of the Messiah? (Ibid)

However, Adam and Eve were not told that the Messiah would come back in their generation as the first century believers were told by Christ and the apostles as we have already demonstrated. Seraiah?s observation fails miserably.

Next, Seraiah tries to use the example of Abraham and how he had to wait for and patiently endure in order to receive the promise that God made to him of blessing him and multiplying him. All of pages 189 and 190 take this up as a consideration. Once again, the answer is the same to the Abrahamic illustration as it was to that of Adam and Eves waiting for the promise of the coming of Messiah. None of these examples were told that Christ was to return during their generation as those during the fist century era were told. These two examples that Mr. Seraiah gives only make sense IF one rejects the plain text meanings of the statements of a sure and certain first century return of Christ.

This author can certainly understand and relate to the intensity that Mr. Seraiah is feeling as he attempts to derail the Biblical parousia passages of a first century fulfillment. The author himself at one time shared a similar point of view. The author believes that in the same way that he himself was confronted as a partial preterist-futurist with the Preteristic statements of a first century return, that as it was for him, there remains for others two large obstacles that must be overcome: (1) Presupposition, and (2) Peer Pressure. The presuppositions have to do with the distortions of the nature and the timing of the Second Coming of Christ as they have been presented since the middle of the second century through the writings of The Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr, and Second Clement. All three were the first in history to propose a delay or postponement theory of the Second Coming. (See "Early Christian Doctrines" by J.N.D. Kelly, Pg.?s 459-489) We have all been conditioned to believe that there will still be at a "last day" of history, a coming of Christ that will bring all of history to a close and usher in a period of time that fits within the perimeters of our eschatological prejudices. Those prejudices could be Pre- Millenarian, A- Millenarian, Post- Millenarian, or some form of Dispensationalism. They are all separated from the time and nature texts of the New Testament that demand a first century fulfillment.

Probably the most feared of all the reasons for veering away from accepted eschatology with its still future ramifications, has more to do with the pressure that one feels from his colleagues and church associates than anything else. This author has been rejected by a large reformed denomination and by specific individuals within that denomination. It?s easier to just fall back into line when one is discovering that he is heading outside the confines of church traditions than it is to take a stand for Biblical veracity and consistency. May the Lord Jesus use this volume to encourage, convince, convict, and instruct His church back to her eternally written "creeds" as they are found in "the volume of the book." (Hebrews 10: 7) Even if that return means the suffering of a personal persecution and rejection by those who name the same name as they do for salvation.

Whether they like it or not, all forms of eschatological futurism currently share one thing in common with those who rejected Christ?s words in the first century: Whether it?s the rejecting of the timing and nature of His parousia, or the altering or refusing of anything else Christ spoke of, the Lord said-

"He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12: 48)

As Hebrews 9: 27 points out, in the same way each of us will one day die, so each of us will have our time of judgment before the throne of Christ. For the believer, this could very well be a time of loss and rebuke for the misrepresenting of Christ?s word on the subject of His parousia. It is the prayer and sincere desire of this author that this volume will assist in alleviating that as a possibility for our futurist brothers and sisters.