In a Facebook group I belong to, a gentleman started a thread suggesting that Scripture supports two future comings of Jesus. A prewrath (PW) adherent (Ron Wallace) soon posted a commentary contradicting him. This is a fairly typical scenario. Wallace's position is that when Christ returns, He remains in the atmosphere. While this has problems, I'll grant he can claim a single Second Advent. I noted that Robert Van Kampen, Charles Cooper and Alan Kurschner hold to multiple Second Advent events; where Christ moves between heaven and earth—yet they call it a single Parousia.
Alan Kurschner reacted HERE, claiming I don't understand prewrath,
The second coming (parousia; the plural in Greek is parousiai) is an extended event when God will fulfill various purposes through his Son. Jesus’s first coming lasted over thirty years, beginning with his arrival of his birth and ending with his ascension.
Christ's resurrection and ascension did not involve a second coming in that time. His first coming, and all the events associated with it, lasted over thirty years—while remaining on the earth. The issue is whether Christ's (PW) deliverance of the church to heaven (Rev 7)—and then His return to earth—constitutes more than one future Parousia.
He asserts I believe in two future comings because I think Paul's Parousia occurs before the seven-year period. What's his logic? If one insists the PW Single Parousia contains a subset of comings and goings—aside from disagreeing with pretrib—how does the same condition not apply to pretribulationism?
Kurschner points to Rev 19 (retrieval of heavenly armies for Armageddon), and claims I misunderstand this as a completely different Parousia,
...if Jesus removes his feet from earth for a particular purpose (such as retrieving his heavenly army) then that must somehow terminate his current parousia. That is where his literalistic claim—and misunderstanding of the use of the Greek word parousia—fails.
Don't know what he means by "literalistic." I understand the PW position and disagree with it. In fact, in my experience, many PW proponents aren't aware of the multi-phase issue and become confused when told. It's not in the charts and Kurschner didn't mention it in his book. As for his prewrath Parousia (in contrast to "parousiai")—where do we find it supported in the definitions?
He (oddly) uses "an absurd illustration to make the point" (his words).
...if Jesus exercised by jump roping one hundred times by lifting his feet off the ground, then there must have been one hundred comings (parousiai) of Jesus.
No, there would then be an event consisting of a hundred jumps, because Jesus would be on the earth while performing them. But if Jesus, while jumping rope, went into Target four times in three years—we wouldn't say He had a continuous presence there. We ought to then say that He visited Target four times in three years. We can say He has a continuous presence in the city He lives in. That's it.
Likewise, at Rev 19, Jesus comes from heaven to the earth. But PW must assert that Rev 19 (not the first coming) is part of the same coming as Matt 24:30-31 with an unspecified period in between, because it wants to declare a Single Parousia.
Kurschner says,
First, if Jesus must be physically on earth alive to be considered a Parousia, then that contradicts Paul’s teaching in 1 Thess 4:15–17 where Paul explicitly states that his parousia begins in the air—not the earth. Not to mention, just after the second coming (parousia) begins, he will escort the church to heaven before the (sic) his Father.
Jesus' feet don't touch the earth in the pretrib rapture view. Why, then, can't it claim a single extended Parousia if the rapture occurs before the 70th Week, and then Christ returns later? Kurschner attempts to impose an inconsistent criteria because PW is a modified Historic-Classic Premil version of posttrib. Traditionally, HP posttrib proponents deny that the Lord can come (First Parousia) for His church, and then come (Second Parousia) to inaugurate the Millennium.
An afterthought: One reason PW's will not theoretically allow a Single Parousia designation for the pretrib model is that it would then support imminence.
Prewrathers occasionally cite Ladd's The Blessed Hope. In chapter 3 (The Vocabulary of The Blessed Hope), he writes that the Parousia is a Single Event involving the rapture of the church and the destruction of the Antichrist etc (pages 62-65). But what would Ladd say of the PW extended posttrib version?
Charles Ryrie addresses the vocabulary of eschatology in Come Quickly, Lord Jesus; noting that posstribbers [like Ladd] view the Parousia, Apokalypse and Epiphany as One Event. Again, this would be at odds with prewrath. After drawing an analogy, Ryrie responds,
...the word [Parousia] itself does not indicate whether these are a single event or separate events. In other words, the vocabulary used does not necessarily prove either pre- or posttrib views.
Dr. Kurschner's use of Parousia is bound up in his rapture deductions and opposition to pretribulationism. But he fails to show how his model isn't an example of parousiai. He simply asserts otherwise.
Further reading:
The Parousia of Jesus Christ (Cooper)
Eric Douma's response to Prewrath
Myron Houghton
Bifurcating the Parousia
John Walvoord's review of "The Blessed Hope"
