THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST—A SUCCINCT HISTORY
BY DANIEL SEELYE GREGORY. D.D., LL.D.
The legend of “The Wandering Jew,” in its various forms, has its basis in the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ, or of His personal return to this world. This is true of the form of the legend that underlies Croly’s romance, the Lord Himself having given assurance of His return to the hero of the work and the arch-plotter, in the words of doom: “Tarry thou till I come!” The doctrine of the Second Coming has been accepted by the Christian Church and embodied in its creeds in all ages.
The Second Advent finds its analog in many respects in the First Advent, and that, not in its facts only, but in its difficulties as well. According to the Old Testament, a great Redeemer was to appear; he was to be a prophet, priest, and king, and was to deliver his people from their sins and from their oppressors; he was to set up a kingdom that should become universal, absorbing all earthly kingdoms; and he was to exalt his people to the summit of prosperity and glory. These predictions turned the minds of the whole Jewish race toward the future, in confident expectation of the coming Messiah, in whose birth and career they all anticipated their fulfilment. Nevertheless, tho Christ came indeed fulfilling prophecy, it was “in a way which no man did anticipate or could have anticipated.”
So the main features of the Second Advent have been prophetically presented with like fulness, and yet, as of old, the Church has had to remain “satisfied with the great truths which those prophecies unfold, and leave the details to be explained by the event.”
The many theories of the Second Coming of Christ and of the millennium—or the thousand years’ reign of Christ at the end of time, as connecting with that coming—may be reduced to two, one based upon the literal and the other upon the spiritual interpretation of the Scriptures on this subject.
1st. The literal, or Chiliastic, notion of the millennium, as held by some Christians, was derived from the Jews, and was largely confined originally to the converts from Judaism to Christianity. The Jewish doctrine received its peculiar form from Rabbi Elias, who lived about two centuries before the Christian era. According to this ante-Jewish tradition:
“The world is to last seven thousand years—six thousand to be years of toil and trouble, and the seventh thousand to be a grand Sabbatism. It is to be ushered in by the advent of the Messiah, who is to establish his throne at Jerusalem. The Holy City is to be rebuilt with surpassing magnificence, as described by Tobit (xiii., xiv.); the Jews are to return to Palestine; their pious ancestors are to be raised from the dead and reign in their own land, with their offspring, under the Messiah” (see T. O. Summers, in Johnson’s “Universal Cyclopedia,” article “Millennium”).
Some of the early Christians—like the early Jews, pressed with persecutions and longing for temporal deliverance—adopted this literal view, except that they modified it by recognizing Jesus as the true Messiah, and by acknowledging the equality of Gentile with Jewish believers in the millennial age. The Thessalonian Christians, in particular, early developed a tendency to the literal, Chiliastic interpretation, which was, however, checked and corrected by Paul’s letters to them.
But the first teacher who is clearly recorded as having adopted the crude Jewish notion was Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, in Phrygia; altho Cerinthus, a heretic of the first century, is said to have held it. According to Irenæus, Papias pretended to have received a glowing tradition direct from the Apostle John embodying and enlarging all the Jewish literalism.
In part it is to this effect: “The days shall come in which there shall be vines which shall severally have ten thousand branches, and every one of these shall have ten thousand lesser branches, and every one of these branches shall have ten thousand twigs, and every one of these twigs shall have ten thousand clusters of grapes, and in every one of these clusters shall be ten thousand grapes, and every one of these grapes being pressed shall give twenty-five metretas of wine; and when a person shall take hold of one of these sacred bunches, another shall cry out, ‘I am a better bunch, take me, and by me bless the Lord.’”
Irenæus reports similar fanciful traditions respecting extraordinary temporal blessings during the millennial period. Papias taught that Christ’s reign on earth should be corporeal. In the main, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Nepos, and Lactantius agree with Papias, teaching the Christians under their instruction these views, each varying the details according to his own fancy.
The disciples of Papias and their successors naturally pressed into their service Rev. xx. 1-10, interpreting it with the baldest literalness.
The same method has been used by the later followers, who have largely held to a literal, corporeal reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years. There has often been coupled with this view—growing out of Christ’s teaching of the Imminency of his Second Coming—a belief in the Immediacy of that Coming.
2d. The usual or Catholic theory of the millennium has its basis in the spiritual, rather than literal, interpretation of the Scriptures on this subject. It rejects alike Jewish traditions and Patristic fancies.
According to this view, the number 1,000 is often employed in the Scriptures as “denoting a definite number for an indefinite.” It is so used manifestly in Psalm xc. 4, in 2 Peter iii. 8, and in Rev. xx. 1-7. In the last passage, as has been often remarked, it is “evidently a definite number for an indefinite,” indicating a long period. The entire passage is figurative, in keeping with the enigmatical book in which it is found. The angel with the key of the abyss, a chain and a seal to bind and confine the devil, thrones and the souls of martyrs seated upon them, and judgment given to them—these are all “pictorial representations of the circumscription of Satan’s power, the revival of the martyr spirit in the Church, and the general prevalence of truth and righteousness in the earth. This agrees with the figurative style of the Apocalypse, and corresponds with the predictions concerning the prosperity of the Church in the last days. In no other place is there any allusion to a millennium.”
This interpretation, it is held, is agreeable to the style of prophecy, that is elsewhere employed in the Revelation (compare Isa. xxvi. 19; Ezek. xxxvii. 13, 14; Hos. vi. 2; Rev. xi. 7, 11). This spiritual view also agrees with the paracletal work of Christ, while the Judaico-Christian does not; it is favorable to the efforts of the Church for the conversion of the world, and accords with the general teachings of the Scriptures concerning “the last things.”
But while the literal method has been to some extent followed, there has been a common or Catholic Church-doctrine which, as will be seen, has alone been embodied in the creeds of Christendom. That common, creedal, or Catholic doctrine embraces the teachings that—
1st. The Second Advent of Jesus is to be a personal, visible, and glorious advent as the Son of God.
2d. It is to be preceded by the universal diffusion of the Gospel, the conversion of the Jews and the coming of Antichrist.
3d. It is to be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead, just and unjust, the general judgment, the end of the world, and the consummation of Christ’s kingdom.
The cardinal passages of Scripture on this doctrine are Matthew xxiv. and the two Epistles to the Thessalonians—the latter of which was apparently rendered necessary by the development of the teachings in the former. It is not possible to enter here into a detailed interpretation of these passages. Had there been no extraneous influences at work, what is claimed to be the simple and natural interpretation of these Scriptures, which has always been in accord with the Catholic doctrine embodied in the creeds, would probably have continued to be the faith of all Christians.
The later-Jewish doctrine of the Messianic kingdom upon earth was a main influence in directing the new development. The disciples being Jews were naturally infected with this view, and did not rise above it till after the experiences of Pentecost.
Millenarianism or Chiliasm naturally arose out of sympathy with this Jewish materialism, and spread to some extent among the Jewish Christians in the early Church. There was also introduced the doctrine of two resurrections, based on the literal understanding of Rev. xx., unmodified by the teachings of Jesus in Matt, xxiv. With the Second Advent of Christ, according to this view, is to take place the first resurrection, that of the righteous dead at that time. Then is to follow a personal, corporeal reign of Christ for a thousand years—a millennium—upon the renovated earth. At the close of this millennial period, the second resurrection, that of the righteous and the wicked, is to occur, and the end of the world.
As already hinted, this doctrine at first started and became prevalent among the Jewish, as distinguished from the Gentile, Christians. Persecutions arising from time to time, and the distressed conditions resulting from governmental opposition have, however, extended to the Gentile Christians belief in the corporeal features of Chiliasm. They have likewise resulted at various times in an earnest longing for the immediate return of Christ, in an expectation of His immediate setting up of His kingdom in the place of the earthly kingdoms, and in belief in the imminence of His advent.
The conflict between the earlier and Catholic doctrine and this Chiliastic outgrowth may readily be traced in the history of the Church. It appeared in its full development, first of all, early in the apostolic age, in connection with the Church at Thessalonica. The two earliest of the Pauline Epistles—supposed to have been written in A.D. 52 and 53—are largely taken up with the exhibition and refutation of the departures from the Catholic doctrine on this subject.
After their experience at Philippi, Paul and Silas passed on through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica. This city—now called in slightly changed form Salonica—was a great maritime city and the capital of the first division of Macedonia, and it always had a large Jewish population. As Antioch was the natural center for Christian work in Asia Minor, so Thessalonica was one of the best strategic points—if not the best—for beginning the conquest of Europe. This was recognized by Paul himself, who, inspired with the great purpose of making the empire of Christ coterminous with that of Rome, wrote, only a few months after leaving Thessalonica (1 Thess. i. 8), that “from them the word of the Lord had sounded forth like a trumpet, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but in every place.”
The preaching that led to the expulsion of Paul and Silas from the city (see Acts xvii. 1-10) furnishes the key to the Epistles written a little later. It was the doctrine of the Kingdom of God. The accusation brought against them was that they were proclaiming another King than Cæsar (Acts xvii. 7). In writing to them Paul accordingly reminds them of his exhortations and entreaties, that they should “walk worthy of God who called them to his Kingdom and Glory” (1 Thess. ii. 12), and addresses them as those who had “suffered affliction for the sake of that Kingdom” (2 Thess. i. 5). Christ’s Second Coming had evidently been a chief topic of Paul’s preaching to them.
The brevity of the Apostle’s stay in the city gave little opportunity for instructing and grounding the Christians, chiefly Gentiles, in the Christian system; but they appear to have continued stedfast in the faith in the severe persecutions and afflictions that followed (1 Thess. ii. 14; iii. 3; 2 Thess. i. 4). Nevertheless there were some peculiar aspects of the doctrine of the Second Coming toward which their trials seemed naturally to push them. Looking upon it as the glorious coming of the Lord for deliverance (1 Thess. i. 10), some came to believe in the imminency, if not the immediacy, of the Second Advent; and so gave up laboring for their own support, became burdensome to the brethren, and encouraged irregularities by their mode of life. Moreover, there arose a perplexity about the case of those who should fall asleep before the Second Coming.
This state of things led Paul, toward the close of 53 A.D., to write from Athens his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, to give specific instruction regarding these points. His main theme is the consolation from the hope of the Second Coming of the Lord. The leading words in the Epistle (as in 2 Thessalonians) are Parousia (advent, or appearing) and Affliction. The prominence in it of the coming of the Lord is shown by the fact that each chapter rises to and rests in that Coming as its conclusion (see ch. i. 10; ii. 20; iii. 13; iv. 17, 18; v. 23).
The Second Epistle was written to the Thessalonians in A.D. 53, from Corinth. The former letter had produced salutary results, on which the Apostle congratulates them; but their manifold tribulations on account of the faith had caused the opinion that the Lord’s coming would take place immediately, to gain ground rapidly among them. This hope was fostered by some among them who claimed to have the “spirit of prophecy,” and it was also thought to be favored by Paul’s own teachings (2 Thess. ii. 2). In consequence of this, the habits of idleness and irregularity had increased. Moreover, the false Jewish teachers were beginning to lead the Thessalonian Christians to look upon “the Day of the Lord,” according to the Old-Testament view (Isa. xiii.; Joel ii.; Amos v. 18), as a Day of Judgment, rather than of deliverance and glory. The aim of the Second Epistle is to meet the new needs that had arisen.
It will be seen from this outline view that the Epistles to the Thessalonians bear a relation to the Second Advent of Christ similar to that of the Book of Daniel to his First Advent. They were the guidebook for that age and for the Church of the after-ages. In conjunction with the teaching of our Lord Himself in Matt. xxiv., their instructions and directions would appear to be sufficiently full and explicit. For the time being the Chiliastic views seem to have disappeared from the Church, and the Catholic doctrine to have held full sway.
A new development of Chiliasm took place toward the close of the second century. It resulted from the persecuting hand of the government being laid heavily upon the Church.
It is not necessary here to enter into the causes of the persecutions by the Romans. It is enough to note that the ideas of religious freedom in the modern world are quite alien to those of the ancient world. There were none but state religions and national gods. Cicero lays down as the fundamental maxim of legislation in ancient Romanism, that “no man shall have for himself particular gods of his own; no man shall worship by himself any new or foreign gods, unless they are recognized by the public laws.” And so Christianity came necessarily into collision with the laws of the state.
The bloody persecutions, from the last half of the second century onward, were the inevitable outcome of this natural and essential antagonism; but even in the opening half of the second century the Christians were subjected to sore trials such as those from which the Thessalonians suffered. In passing through these, their minds seem to have turned again, says Neander, to “the idea of the millennial reign, which the Messiah was to set up on earth.… In the midst of persecutions, it was a solace and support to the Christians to anticipate that even upon this earth, the scene of their sufferings, the Church was destined to triumph in its perfected and glorified state.” In some regions this view took on a more spiritual form; while in others, as in Phrygia, the natural home of a sensual, enthusiastic religious spirit, “Chiliasm appeared in its crass and grossly conceived form in which the earthly Jewish mind had depicted it.”
Among the Apostolic Fathers, in the second century, the doctrine appears in the writings of Barnabas, Hernias, and Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, only, the last named teaching it in its grossest form. As Dr. Shedd has said (“History of Christian Doctrine,” vol. ii., p. 390): “There are no traces of Chiliasm in the writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagorus, and Theophilus of Antioch.” He adds: “The inference from these facts, then, is that this tenet was not the received faith of the Church certainly down to the year 150. It was held only by individuals.” Among the really masterful scholars, ecclesiastics, and theologians, it had not a single advocate. That it was not the faith of the Apostolic Church is further evident from the fact that it was not embodied in the so-called Apostles’ Creed, which is “undoubtedly the substance of the short confessions of faith which the catechumens of the Apostolic Church were accustomed to make upon entering the Church.”
The period from 150 A.D. to 250 has been called “the blooming age of Millenarianism.” It was in this period of bitter and increased persecution that Irenæus and Tertullian came forward as its advocates, giving glowing descriptions of the millennial reign. “Antichrist, together with all the nations that side with him, will be destroyed. All earthly empires, and the Roman in particular, will be overthrown. Christ will appear, and will reign a thousand years, in corporeal presence on earth, in Jerusalem, which will be rebuilt and made the capital of His kingdom. The patriarchs, prophets, and all the pious, will be raised from the dead, and share in the felicity of this kingdom. The New Jerusalem is depicted in the most splendid colors” (Shedd, “History of Christian Doctrine,” vol. ii.. p. 390).
But even Irenæus and Tertullian, in presenting “brief synoptical statements of the authorized faith of the Church,” in their writings against heretics, make no mention of the Millenarian tenet as belonging to that faith.
The third century, chiefly in its first half, witnessed the strenuous discussion that seems practically to have brought to an end, for the time at least, the tendency in the Church to accept the Chiliastic doctrine. This was conducted in the Alexandrian School, under the lead of three great teachers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen his pupil, and Dionysius the pupil of Origen. They did not reject the Apocalypse, but addressed themselves to opposing the grossly literal interpretations put upon it by the Chiliasts.
The method adopted by Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria is of peculiar interest, as showing what may be accomplished by candid Christian discussion. Neander gives a somewhat detailed account of his course (“Church History,” vol. i., p. 452). Nepos, a pious Egyptian bishop belonging to the region of Arsinoë, and who was a devoted friend of the sensual Chiliasm, wrote a book against the Alexandrian school, entitled “A Refutation of the Allegorists.” “The book seems to have found great favor with the clergy and laity in the above-mentioned district. Great mysteries and disclosures of future events were supposed to be found here; and many engaged with more zeal in the study of the book and theory of Nepos than in that of the Bible and its doctrines.” So zealous did his disciples become for this tenet that they brought the charge of heresy against all who refused to accept it. Whole churches separated themselves from their communion with the mother-church at Alexandria. After the death of Nepos, a country priest, Coracion, took the leadership of this party.
Neander gives an interesting account of the way in which, by instruction and discussion, the good and wise Bishop of Alexandria, Dionysius, led Coracion back to the faith. This happened in the year 255.
“Having restored the unity of faith among his own churches,” Dionysius wrote his work on the Promises, for the instruction of the churches. By the opening of the fourth century Chiliasm seems to have almost disappeared from the Church, as is shown by the statements of Eusebius, the church historian. Describing the writings of Papias, Eusebius remarks that they contain “matters rather too fabulous,” among which he enumerates the opinion of Papias that “there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth.” The return to the Catholic doctrine on the subject seems therefore to have been quite general before the year 400.
The history of the Chiliastic doctrine from the opening of the fifth century may be briefly summarized, since its manifestations have been only sporadic and temporary.
As the tenth century drew to a close there arose “an undefined fear and expectation among the masses that the year 1000 would witness the advent of the Lord,” but this passed away with the century.
At the time of the Reformation, the doctrine was revived by the fanatical Anabaptists, Münzer and his followers, who attempted to put down all temporal sovereignty and to establish the kingdom of the saints with fire and sword. They were, however, vigorously opposed by Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, and the other great reformers, and their military forces were defeated and crushed and their leaders slain at Mühlhausen in 1525 and at Munster in 1535. Leading symbols of the Reformation period strongly condemn Chiliasm, e.g., the Augsburg Confession, the Belgic Confession, and the English Confession of Edward VI.
The history of the doctrine during the nineteenth century is well summarized by Dr. Shedd:
“During the present century, individual minds in England and America, and upon the Continent of Europe, have attempted to revive the theory—in some instances in union with an intelligent and earnest orthodoxy, in others in connection with an uneducated and somewhat fanatical pietism. The first class is represented by Delitzsch and Auberlen in Germany, and by Cumming, Elliott, and Bonar in Great Britain; the second class by the so-called Adventists and Millerites in the United States.”
The Millerite movement, started in 1831 by William Miller, an American, who predicted that Christ’s Second Coming and the end of the world would take place in 1843, received what was practically its death-blow in the failure of the prediction to meet with accomplishment at the appointed time. Substantially the same classes of people are, however, to be found among the Adventists, or Second Adventists, of the present time, including a considerable number of immigrant foreigners, especially Scandinavians. Some of these hold to the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked and to that of the sleep of the dead until the resurrection. The approach of the twentieth century seems to have given an impulse to the Adventist movement, altho it has not changed the character or quality of its advocates.
The survey thus made of the history of the Church, ancient, medieval, and modern, brings out the fact that the Catholic doctrine, as already outlined, has always been the Church doctrine. The Chiliastic views based upon the literal interpretation of the Scriptures bearing upon the subject have never been generally accepted. The facts, as summarized by Dr. Shedd (“History of Christian Doctrine,” vol. ii., p. 398), are as follows:
“1. That Millenarianism was never the ecumenical faith of the Church and never entered as an article into any of the creeds.
“2. That Millenarianism has been the opinion of individuals and parties only—some of whom have stood in agreement with the Catholic faith, and some in opposition to it.”