I well recall hearing in the past that Jesus came once as the humble servant but next time he would return as the conquering warrior and righteous judge, in accordance with Revelation 19. Jesus may have exemplified meekness, perseverance, and humility as the sacrificial Lamb of God, but he ultimately was going to finish God’s business with humanity in a bloody apocalypse. Love and grace appeared to be the initial message and method for dealing with sinful mankind, but when love and grace would fail to transform, then the real Jesus would appear, approaching evil the age old way- with destruction.
For those church members who found the first advent to be a bit too squishy and liberal like, they could attach instead to the warrior as their role model. Accordingly, when observing much that the church fosters, we see a strong tendency to extol violence as a proper, even mandatory response to perceived evil. The prophetic prospect of a future Jesus as a ruthless warrior leaves the door wide open to ignore all that Jesus taught and exemplified in his earthly ministry.
This is a primary reason why the institutional Christian church is so enamored with the idea of an imminent Second Coming, the event in which Jesus returns to judge and destroy. The fact that it is supposedly just around the corner in every age provides the emotional leverage to keep the faithful constantly anxious and ready to do battle.
It should be mystifying to Bible believers that God should start out dealing with mankind in acts of destruction, then centuries later introduce us to the counter intuitiveness of the sacrificial Jesus, only to ultimately return to destruction as the final step in his plan for humanity. If destruction was not the answer before, what makes it the answer now? Did God fail to foresee the failure of grace and love? What changed to bring God back full circle?
Was the first Jesus a failed experiment in how to deal with sin? From the way the church has operated historically, they apparently think so.