When the doctrine of men have reached above and beyond the clear teaching of the Bible, it should be examined and debated.
It is by this means that we affirm that the doctrine indeed lines up with the Bible or discover that there are factors which need further examination. And it is buy this close examination that we discover the truth where original Eschatology change?
After all the disciples and the early church died, off and took their original Jewish understanding of the "parousia" with them. The church became mostly filled with Greek-Gentiles who brought a lot of pagan background and understanding to the church with them.
We have to remember after the Jewish saints in the early church physical died off there were only a few saints to draw on. (For some strange reason) after (A.D. 70) the church went to great lengths to divorce itself from any Jewish roots and connections. Unfortunately this included their original understanding of the parousia.
So it made a significant impact on the Gentiles understanding of these things. So in the middle of the second century church fathers like (Shepherd of Hermas, Justin Martyr and other) postulated the "postponed second advent (parousia)" idea. It didn't come from the Old Testament. ( see Isaiah 34:8, 35:4-6, 40:10-11, 61:1-2 62:11, 63:1-6, 66:6-16, Zech 14, and Mal. 4:16 etc. The language used closely connects the coming of the Lord with both (salvation and vengeance) "judgment."
The only thing in the New Testament which even comes close to teaching a "second advent" is Hebrews 9:28, where it says Christ will "appear a second time." This was using the symbolism of the High Priest at Yom Kippur when he took the blood into the holy place and then reappeared back outside the Temple to announce that atonement had been accomplished.
The early church understood this to be simply a reappearance during His "one-and-only advent to consummated his kingdom. Not an entirely different advent after a long indefinite period. However the saints who lived in the middle of the second century when they saw the remaining prophecies associated with Christ's parousia did not occur in the physical-literal way they assumed they had not been fulfilled at all.
So they began adjusting their concept of the TIME of fulfillment, instead of considering the possibility that their concepts of the NATURE of fulfillment were the only things needing adjustment. This thinking is where the mistake was made, and it has affected Christianity ever since.
Unfortunately it occurred before the creeds were developed, so this misunderstanding was incorporated into them, as well. Many (but not all ) assumed that a physical body is the subject of N.T. resurrection texts, just like the Jews assumed their physical temple, nation and land were the subjects of all O.T. restoration prophecies.
They assumed to much physical and literal concepts. Like the unbelieving Jews of Jesus's day who liberalized the "kingdom of God" they liberalized the rest of the fulfillment associated with Christ parousia,
Justin Martyr, Shepherd of Hermas and 2 Clement seem to be credited with changing things because doubts about imminence were beginning to ooze into their minds. The thought never seems to occur to them that their concept of the NATURE of fulfillment was the problem instead of the TIME of fulfillment. Rather than shift to a spiritual nature of fulfillment, they instead tampered with the time statements.
Now Listen to these suggestions by Kurt Aland....we discover a decisive turning point in the second half of the second century a watershed decisive for the development of the Christian church. It was the definite conviction not only of Paul, but of all Christians of that time, that they themselves would experience the return of the Lord;
The Apocalypse expresses the fervent waiting for the end withing the circles in which the writer lived-not an expectation that will happen at some unknown point x in time, but one in the immediate present. If we browse through the writings of that period we observe that this expectation of the end continued.
In fact, we also find the writing of the first half of the second century sufficient evidence to indicate that the expectation of the Parousia was by no means at an end then.
At the end of the Didache ("the teaching of the twelve apostles"), from the time shortly after 100, there is, for example, an apocalyptic chapter which corresponds completely in its outline to the Synoptic apocalypse in Mark 13 (and the parallel chapters in the other Synoptic Gospels.); here we can only very cautiously say that it used the same words, but that its content is imperceptibly in the process of change. It quite similar to the Epistle of Barnabas which was written a little later that the Didache, where we read: (The day is near in which everything will perish together with the evil. The Lord and his recompense are near).
Again and again the old expressions echo. They echo apparently almost unchanged, but ("doubt about the imminence of the Lord's return is increasingly mixed with them until around the middle of the second century when the Shepherd of Hermas thinks he has found a solution and expresses it with great thoroughness and emphaisi: the Parousia-the Lord's return-has been postponed for the sake of Christians them selves.
The building of the tower has not been stopped,) it is only temporarily suspended. Therefore and this is the warning of the Shepherd of Hermas, on account of which the entire work was really written do good works for your purification, for if you delay too long, the construction of the tower may be finished and you will not be included as stones built into it.
The thought of a postponement of the Parousia appears all through 2 Clement but here it is expressly mentioned for the first time. Thus, about the middle of the second century, a decisive turning point occurs one which can be compared in significance to all other great turning points, including the Reformation. Obviously, we cannot fix this turning point precisely at the year 150, for it took a while until the though caught hold everywhere.
But a development does begin with the Shepherd of Hermas which could not be stopped-a development at the end of which we stand today. As soon as the thought of a postponement of the Parousia was uttered once and indeed not only incidentally, but thoroughly presented in an entire writing-it developed its (own life and power).
At first, people looked at it as only a brief postponement, as the Shepherd of Hermas clearly expresses. But soon, as the end of the world did not occur, it was conceived of as a longer and longer period, until finally-this is today's situation nothing but the thought of a postponement exists in people's consciousness. (Kurt Aland. A History of Christianity. (2 vols.) Fortress Press: 1985. Vol. 1,pp.89-102
To any Christian who is sensitive to the issue of the inspiration of Scripture these words must drop like a bombshells like they did on me when I first read these words. How can we justify the second century brethren tampering with the clear words of Scripture like this?
It would have been better for them to change their physical-literal interpretative method than to put the NT writers in the position of false prediction.
Above we have heard from a well-known students of Church history pinpoint the middle of the second century as the time when a paradigm shift in eschatological concepts occurred. Aland says this time was as decisive and significant for the development of the church as "all other great turning point, including the Reformation."
These are pretty powerful statements, and they're coming from someone who knows a "decisive turning point" when he sees one.
It is time students of Scripture exhaustively examined eschatology, using all the alliable information that has accumulated since the first century, but reserving all judgment to Scripture alone.
These kind of statements can be found in many early Church history writting and can seen by any students of God's word who wont's to know the truth. Are the doctrines of men "beyond reproach" or testing? As seen above the answer to that question should be no, we should not avoid examining the teaching of men to see if they line up with the holy Bible.
) not to test a doctrine by holding it up to the scripture and see how it stands. Otherwise, how could you dispute a false prophet that says "Thus saith the Lord"?
