This argument appears fairly solid. Certainly if the early Christians believed Jesus to have already been once on earth, they would have been more clear in describing his future apocalyptic appearance as a return, wouldn't have they? Well, there is more to the story than what Doherty tells us.
Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle (2006):
If readers can free themselves from Gospel preconceptions, they should find that these and other references of the same nature convey the distinct impression that this will be the Lord Jesus' first and only coming to earth, that this longing to see Christ has in no way been previously fulfilled. We keep waiting or the sense of "return" or the simple use of a word like "again." We wait for these writers to clarity, to acknowledge, that Jesus had already been on earth, had begun the work he would complete at the Parousia (his "coming" at the End-time); that men and women had formerly witnessed their deliverance in the event of Jesus' death and resurrection; that he had been "revealed" (one of Paul's favorite words in speaking of the Parousia) to the sight of all in his incarnated life as Jesus of Nazareth. But never an echo of such ideas do we hear in the background of these passages.
Perhaps the most telling reference of them all is Hebrews 10:37:
"For soon, very soon (in the words of scripture) 'he who is to come will come and will not delay.' "This is from Habakkuk 2:3 (LXX). The prophet was referring to God himself, but by the Christian period this was one of those many biblical passages reinterpreted as referring to the Messiah. Indeed, the Greek participle erchomenos, which the Septuagint (LXX) employs, became a virtual title, used with a masculine article, "the Coming One," and referred to the expected savior figure who would arrive at the End-time. Hebrews is clearly using it as a reference to Christ. (p. 50)
Mr. Doherty gets rather hung up on the word erchomenos because it doesn't make a clear reference to a second coming. As Doherty argues, the author of Hebrews should have used language reflecting his belief that Jesus' apocalyptic coming was a return if, indeed, he believed it was a return—that Jesus had already been on earth once before. Paul, too, uses a word to speak of Christ's arrival, parousia, that presents no implication of an initial visit to earth by Jesus. And so we must ask ourselves, says Doherty, whether or not these authors actually believed in an historical Jesus if the language they use seems to leave no room for the existence of a Jesus that already walked the earth. But is this really the case? Did these authors really not believe Jesus to have already come to earth once before? Is that why they use language apparently ignorant of an initial visit?
One way to address this is to look at the language used in Christian writings elsewhere to reference the Second Coming, in particular, those authors who clearly do believe in an historical Jesus. How do these folks talk about the Second Coming? If they use words and phrases that clearly describe Christ's apocalyptic coming as a return, then Doherty really does have an interesting point. But if their language appears as ignorant of a first coming as that of Paul and the author of Hebrews, then Doherty's argument falls flat—we clearly wouldn't be justified concluding that they may not have believed in an historical Jesus on grounds of their wording here since even folk who clearly did believe in an historical Jesus used the same wording. So what do we find?
In the gospel of John, Jesus is reported as saying: "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?" (Jn 21:22). The word used here for 'come' is the same word used in the Hebrews passage quoted by Doherty, erchomai. John clearly believed in an historical Jesus—a Jesus who had already come to earth. Yet he fails to use language indicative of this belief when talking about the apocalyptic return of Christ.
The two men in white robes in Acts state: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11). Again, the word used here for 'come' is erchomai—the same word as used in John and Hebrews.
These Christians, who certainly believed in an historical Jesus, use the same language to talk about Christ's Second Coming as the author of Hebrews. Repeatedly this word is used as a reference to the return of Jesus (for another gospel example: Mt 16:27–28). Clearly the use of this word, erchomai, to reference Jesus' eschatological arrival cannot be used to rule out an author's belief in a first coming of Jesus.
Paul's language is also echoed in the writings of Christians who clearly believed in Jesus as an historical individual. In Matthew, the disciples ask Jesus: "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (Mt 24:3). The word used for 'coming' in this passage is parousia: the same as what Paul uses in his first epistle to the church in Corinth:
Paul doesn't use any wording to clarify that this coming will be a return or second coming; but neither does Matthew, and he clearly did believe in an historical Jesus.
1 Corinthians 15:23 (NRSV):
But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming [parousia] those who belong to Christ.
Based on these observations, then, it would appear as though it was common practice for early Christians to use rather plain language in describing the Second Coming of Jesus, language that was not specific in indicating whether the coming of Christ was a first coming or a second coming. The conclusion that Paul and the author of Hebrews are not likely talking about a second coming simply because they do not specifically say so cannot stand; the way they talked about Christ's apocalyptic arrival is simply the way all Christians talked about it, whether they clearly believed in a first coming or whether their beliefs on a first coming are in question.
The language used by Paul and the author of Hebrews when talking about the Second Coming cannot be used to build a case against their belief in an historical Jesus.
To add to Doherty's troubles, there is at least one clear reference to a first and second coming in Hebrews:
It is Doherty's claim that the phrase translated as 'second time', ek deuterou, could better be translated as 'secondly' or 'next in sequence', thus removing any reference to a first and second coming. He argues this on the grounds that his preferred translation preserves a supposed parallel between verse 27 and 28 in which the death of men is likened to the sacrifice of Christ and their judgement to his appearance to "save those who are eagerly waiting for him". The parallel only works, argues Doherty, if each verse uses language indicating 'first... and then...', and so this is sufficient reason for reading ek deuterou as 'next' instead of as 'second time'.
Hebrews 9:27–28 (NRSV):
And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgement, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him
But this argument is weak on a couple of grounds. First, the supposed parallel is a structural parallel, not a verbal one. Had the author intended a verbal parallel, he could have as easily used the same word in verse 28 as in 27. (Note that even if we choose to translate the phrase in question as 'next' or 'after', the verses still employ two different phrases/words as originally written, and so the intended parallel cannot be verbal.) Structurally, then, the parallel looks like this: Death | Judgement ; Sacrifice | Salvation. Since the parallel is structural, the issue of how to translate ek deuterou cannot rest on preservation of the parallel—the parallel is preserved no matter how we translate this word.
Second, the author adds a small parenthetical note to verse 28: "not to deal with sin...". Why does our author feel the need for this clarification? Why is it not good enough for him to say "so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear ek deuterou to save those who are eagerly waiting for him"? Why must the author provide clarification regarding this appearance of Christ? The most obvious answer is that this note has been inserted by the author to distinguish the future appearance, in which Jesus is to save those waiting for him, from some other appearance, in which Jesus deals with sin. But if Christ's appearance for saving those awaiting him is to be the future and final act, then when else could the other appearance have taken place but at some point in the past? It makes the most sense to read this passage as indicating two appearances in which two different things are achieved: the sacrifice for sins (see Heb 10:12) at the first appearance and the salvation of Christians at the second appearance.
Considering these two points, it is difficult to imagine any valid reason for concluding that Hebrews 9:27–28 does not explicitly inform the reader to two comings of Jesus.
And when we join these points to the points mentioned previously—that early Christians did not use language explicitly mentioning a 'second' coming even when they clearly believed in a first—, it becomes quite difficult to avoid the conclusion that our earliest Christian writers believed in an initial appearance of Jesus on earth and hoped for a second appearance within their lifetimes, and that they spoke of that second appearance using language understood and common to the Christian movement to reference the Second Coming.
We simply cannot look to the language used to reference the Second Coming in trying to determine whether early Christian authors believed in an historical Jesus or not.
We just can't.
SR
__________
Doherty, E. (2006) The Jesus Puzzle. Ontario: Age of Reason Publications.
