The Second Coming...

[The Biblicist]

Your problem is that the proper context for this meeting does not begin in verse 16 but all the way back in verse 5 which is more inclusive than the "eleven":

5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.
9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.
10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.......16 ¶ Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.


In this passage of scripture, there are three groups of his followers listed that were to meet him in Galilee at an appointed place, later identified in this same passage as that mount. (1) "The women;" (2) "his disciples" (3) "his brethren." This is the very same division Luke gives in Acts 1:13-14 of the church in Jerusalem.

13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

These are the same ones who continued stedfastly to meet in Acts 2:1 later called "the church" in Jerusalem (Acts 2:47).

Additionally, Matthew 28:17 says "some doubted" which cannot refer to the "eleven" as Jesus appeared to the eleven twice in Jerusalem before going to Galilee for the purpose to remove all doubt remaining in them with Thomas. Moreover, the women could not be those who doubted as angels appeared to them followed by the appearance of Jesus to them prior to this Galilee appointed place. The only possible ones who could still doubt are "the brethren" in addition to the women and the eleven as there is no recorded appearance unto "the brethren" prior to this Galilee appointment. These "brethren" must have included those considered to replace Judas in Acts 1:13-22 as the replacements had to be eye witnesses of his resurrection (Acts 1:21-22).

Moreover, this is the only location provided in the gospel accounts where "over five hundred brethren" saw him "at once" (1 Cor. 15:6).

Therefore, to presume that only the eleven were present is simply ignorance of the full context of this event. Moreover, Jesus has already stated that final administrative authority is in the church "tell it to the church" (Mt. 18:17) rather than "tell it to the apostles" or "tell it to the elders"! Moreover, this is the usual manner of Christ when speaking to his churches to address them through its leadership (Rev. 2-3) unless you believe John sent his letters to the churches by "airmail" (literal "angels") but rather he addressed "the churches" through their ordained messengers - or leaders. This is precisely the same manner in Matthew 28:16-20 he would address the church at Jerusalem. And there was a church already in Jerusalem or else he could not have previously said "tell it to the church" (Mt. 18:17).

Finally, the apostles acknowledge they are subject to church authority. It is the church at Jerusalem that sent apostles to Samaria (Acts 8:14). Peter brought several brethren as witnesses to the house of Cornelius as he realized he would have to give an account to the church for his actions (Acts 11:1-17). It is the "church" that sends Barnabas to Antioch rather than the apostles (Acts 11:22). It is the church at Antioch that sent out Paul to the mission field (Acts 14:1-3) and returned to this church after every mission. Even though Christ had commissioned him personally, the Holy Spirit sent him through the church. Paul did not take off on his own apart from submitting to and working under the authority of the church at Antioch. It is the church that sends Paul and Barnabas to the Jerusalem counsel (Acts 15:1-3). The one sending always has more authority than the ones being sent. It is not merely James the apostle or the other apostles that determined to send out men but it was the action "with the whole church" (Acts 15:22). In Revelation 2-3 Jesus does not tell the Pastor to enforce his will and exercise discipline over members who resist, but rather addresses "the churches" to hear and obey. The apostles were "set in the church" (1 Cor. 12:28) and so our ancient Baptists when directly asked where does authority lie between the ordained leadership or the church, they responded that the authority lies with the church with its leadership, as they did not view the leadership separate from the church but IN the church.

From a secular Baptist history perspective, the earliest records of English Baptist on the subject of the keys of the kingdom are as follows:

In the Associational records of the early English Particular Baptists in 1655 it was asked if the authority symbolized by the giving of the keys was given to the ministry or to the church.

“Query 1. Whether the power of the keys spoken of in Mat. 16:19, John 20:23, Mat. 18:18, be given to the church or to the eldership in the church?

Answer: the exercise of the power of Christ in a church having officers, in opening, and shutting, in receiving in, and casting out, belongs to the church with its eldership, Mat. 18:17f., I Cor. 5:4., III John 9ff., Acts 15:4,22” – B.R. White, ed.,Association Records of the Particular Baptists of England, Wales and Ireland to 1660. (Association Records of the West Country, 1655), p. 60.

When they were asked about whether it was proper for ministers to go forth under some authority other than the church they replied:

“Answer: it is unlawful. 1. Because our Lord Christ sendeth forth his ministers by his power alone, Mt. 28:19, and hee is the head of the body the Church that in all things hee might have the preheminence, Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22

2. Because Christ hath left ALL POWER IN HIS CHURCH both to call and send forth ministers, Mt. 28:19-20, saying, I am with you to the ende of the worlde, and I. Tim. 3; Titus 1; Acts 14; Mt. 18 and 16:18f.

3. Because wee finde the Church ONLY exercising that power both in chusing and sending forth ministers as appeareth by these Scriptures, Acts 1:23,26; 8:14; 13:2f and 11.22. Wee think fitt to adde that wee taking this question intire consider it fully answered.” – B.R. White, ed., Association Records of the Particular Baptists of England, Wales and Ireland to 1660. (Association Records of the Midlands, October 1655) p. 23, (Emphasis mine).

When asked if an ordained member of the church could just go out on his own accord to preach the gospel without being church sent they responded:

“Answer: we answere that such a brother soe judged of by the church ought wholly to be at its disposing. First, because that all those gifted are the church’s, I Cor. 3:22; 12:28; Eph. 4:11. Secondly, because if one brother goe forth at his owne will, then another and so a third, and by that meanes the church may be wholly neglected. Thirdly, because, if such a brother miscarry in his ministerie, it would be charged upon the church, and soe it would prove very dishonorable to the church and truth of Christ. Fourthly, because, in such a disorderly going out, he cannot expect the prayers of the church for the Spirit of God to accompany him, Col. 4:3; Eph. 6:18f, and wee judge if any brother shall persist in such disorderly practice after admonition that it is the church’s duty to deale with him as an offender.” B.R. White, ed., Association Records of the Particular Baptists of England, Wales and Ireland to 1660. (Association Records of the West Country, 1657) p. 34.

 

[asterisktom]

Your problem is that the proper context for this meeting does not begin in verse 16 but all the way back in verse 5 which is more inclusive than the "eleven":

5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, ...

I had to chuckle over this one. Elsewhere you had argued that "the nearest antecedent" tells us that the interpretation is this (words to that effect). You were looking for the nearest antecedent - which is generally a good rule.

But here you through the rule out the window - and go looking for an antecedent that will fit your interpretation. If you didn't find one there, I suppose you could have kept going backward in the Bible. One is bound to fit.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[The Biblicist]

I had to chuckle over this one. Elsewhere you had argued that "the nearest antecedent" tells us that the interpretation is this (words to that effect). You were looking for the nearest antecedent - which is generally a good rule.

But here you through the rule out the window - and go looking for an antecedent that will fit your interpretation. If you didn't find one there, I suppose you could have kept going backward in the Bible. One is bound to fit.:smilewinkgrin:

I don't throw the nearest antecedent out the window here either. I don't deny it refers to the "some" in verse 17, as well as "the eleven" in verse 16 or those who are expressly told about this meeting place in advance from verse 5.

If you noticed, I provided the entire Biblical context that relates to this passage. I did notice you had no response for the mass volume of contextual based evidence provided.

 

[asterisktom]

I don't throw the nearest antecedent out the window here either. I don't deny it refers to the "some" in verse 17, as well as "the eleven" in verse 16 or those who are expressly told about this meeting place in advance from verse 5.

If you noticed, I provided the entire Biblical context that relates to this passage. I did notice you had no response for the mass volume of contextual based evidence provided.

I did respond to that. You just didn't recognize them as responses. BTW, I could just as well say the same for you concerning my earlier Biblical context provided (in this and other threads).

Probably the better course will be just go back to ignoring you. You have a hard time responding to opposing views without vilifying and broad-brushing.

 

[HankD]

Cease Fire!

OK, many moons ago (not sure how many) we had similar discussions (OK that's the sanitized word) and I was part of the general riot.

I found one thing that mattered to me so consider for yourselves the following and perhaps you can find this by scanning the archives.

I researched the writings of Early Church Fathers (ECF) e.g. (Papias, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement, Cyprian and others). One can download volumes of their writings.

Those who lived before, during and after AD70 and not one of them knew anything about what is currently being called "full preterism" (personally I have no quarrel with partial preterism) I used an abundance of citings.

These men always used the future tense related to the Second Coming.
At least one of them was a disciple of John.

The only thing that came close was one (possibly more I think) of them mentioned that the destruction of the temple was of the Lord in fulfillment of scripture but went on to use the future tense concerning His Second Coming and the promises therein (resurrected body, etc).

I challenged preterists to do the same, make the study and come up with a preterist theology of one of the ECF and no one would/could including brother Tom.

It is indeed a weariness to the flesh as there are 20,000 or so ECF pages out there in hyperspace. I did it once and have no desire to do it again.

Yes, I know, people want scripture, well, the ECF use plenty, do the study or scan the archives and see for yourselves.

2 Peter 3
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

The only thing that came close was one (possibly more I think) of them mentioned that the destruction of the temple was of the Lord in fulfillment of scripture but went on to use the future tense concerning His Second Coming and the promises therein (resurrected body, etc).

I challenged preterists to do the same, make the study and come up with a preterist theology of one of the ECF and no one would/could including brother Tom.

Hi, Hank.

Come again? I remember I did answer this question - and at length too. Maybe you can redirect me to the thread you are speaking of.

Part of the answer is that some of the ECF actually wrote earlier than often surmised; The Didache, for instance, Clement of Rome wrote while the Temple was still standing.

But there are other quotes from ECF that did speak of the crucial event as having happened. I shared those.

That is the problem with writing on subjects like this. The answer is forgotten. (Or maybe not seen) And then it becomes "unanswered" and needs to be answered all over again.

 

[HankD]

Hi, Hank.

Come again? I remember I did answer this question - and at length too. Maybe you can redirect me to the thread you are speaking of.

Part of the answer is that some of the ECF actually wrote earlier than often surmised; The Didache, for instance, Clement of Rome wrote while the Temple was still standing.

But there are other quotes from ECF that did speak of the crucial event as having happened. I shared those.

That is the problem with writing on subjects like this. The answer is forgotten. (Or maybe not seen) And then it becomes "unanswered" and needs to be answered all over again.

Hi Tom,
I have tried to locate this dispute and its difficult and laborious getting through the archives not even being sure which year it was in which we all locked horns but I'll try again. Maybe not right now though.

I invite anyone to cite a passage from the ECF which spell out the events of AD70/72 concerning the destruction of the temple by the Roman armies (Titus) as having fulfilled the requirements of the Second Coming of Christ.

I took the time and waded through a multitude of ECF writings but the Second Coming of Jesus Christ was always in the future tense.

Someone prove me wrong and I will eat humble pie.

Ala Mode of course.

HankD

 

[asterisktom]

Hi Tom,
I have tried to locate this dispute and its difficult and laborious getting through the archives not even being sure which year it was in which we all locked horns but I'll try again. Maybe not right now though.

I invite anyone to cite a passage from the ECF which spell out the events of AD70/72 concerning the destruction of the temple by the Roman armies (Titus) as having fulfilled the requirements of the Second Coming of Christ.

I took the time and waded through a multitude of ECF writings but the Second Coming of Jesus Christ was always in the future tense.

Someone prove me wrong and I will eat humble pie.

Ala Mode of course.

HankD

Sounds good. Not the part about eating humble pie. I don't want to inflict that on you. I will settle for finding the answers on this one. I will look also, but it may have to wait till later. Busy day today - and a Sunday at that.

 

[OldRegular]

'The second coming' is a most precious holy sacred cow to many. It's difficult for them to civilly discuss it.

I believe the biblical 'second coming' has occurred already and that His NEXT coming to take us all home is the topic of 1 Cor 15.

The events of 70 AD was a "coming', an "apocalyptic event", in the sense of God entering history to render judgment and fulfill the prophecy of Jesus Christ regarding the destruction of the temple {Matthew 24}. However, I do not believe it was the 'Second Coming" about which much is spoken about in Scripture which prophecies a visible Second Coming.

According to Scripture {John 5:28, 29} that "Coming" will occur concurrently with the resurrection of all the dead, the just and the unjust, followed by the White Throne Judgment. 1 Corinthians 15 certainly addresses certain aspects of this Second Coming as do numerous other passages of Scripture {John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; John 11:24; John 12:48; John 14:1-3; Acts 24:15, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 2 Peter 3:3ff; Revelation 20:11-15}.

Sadly all that Scripture has been thoroughly abused and corrupted by the pre-trib-dispensationalism of Darby/Scofield, embraced by many on this Forum and in the Christian community.

 

[kyredneck]

'The second coming' is a most precious holy sacred cow to many. It's difficult for them to civilly discuss it.

I believe the biblical 'second coming' has occurred already and that His NEXT coming to take us all home is the topic of 1 Cor 15.

You're quite deceitful aren't you? I said biblical 'second coming', as in:

28 so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. Heb 9
37 For yet a very little while, He that cometh shall come, and shall not tarry. He 10

Biblical 'second coming':

40 When therefore the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust.
45 And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. Mt 21

Occurred already. Done. Completed. Past. Over with. Finished.

The events of 70 AD was a "coming', an "apocalyptic event", in the sense of God entering history to render judgment and fulfill the prophecy of Jesus Christ regarding the destruction of the temple {Matthew 24}. However, I do not believe it was the 'Second Coming" about which much is spoken about in Scripture which prophecies a visible Second Coming......

Hey OR, it always makes my heart happy when you show up. My point is simply that the 'second time' coming of Heb 9 is the coming of Mt 21. I'm not denying 'the next' coming of Christ, not in the least. The 'second coming' is such 'heap big medicine' to so many it's nearly impossible to discuss it rationally. Anyone who 'thinks outside of the box' of orthodoxy is immediately impugned as 'heretic'.

[add]

I still await this 'coming':

23...Christ`s, at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 1 Cor 15

 

[percho]

Hey OR, it always makes my heart happy when you show up. My point is simply that the 'second time' coming of Heb 9 is the coming of Mt 21. I'm not denying 'the next' coming of Christ, not in the least. The 'second coming' is such 'heap big medicine' to so many it's nearly impossible to discuss it rationally. Anyone who 'thinks outside of the box' of orthodoxy is immediately impugned as 'heretic'.

[add]

I still await this 'coming':

23...Christ`s, at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power.
25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 1 Cor 15

Christ's at his coming.


Then (After that, thereafter, next) the end.


The end of what?

Does any time transpire between, his coming, and, thereafter the end? Once again, the end of what?

 

[asterisktom]

Christ's at his coming.


Then (After that, thereafter, next) the end.


The end of what?

Does any time transpire between, his coming, and, thereafter the end? Once again, the end of what?

I believe that applying this passage to a future "end", rather than to the end of the Old Covenant, creates more problems than it solves.

Concerning this end in Corinthians, it helps to check out other passages. Notably Daniel 12, where there is a threefold point of connection:

1. A "resurrection" unto "eternal life" (Dan.)/ "incorruptibility" (Cor)
2. An "end" (Dan. 12:4; 1 Cor. 15:24)
3. Victory over the "holy people" (v. 7 - ref. to Old Covenant)/ over the Law (56)

There is, as well, an interesting distinction between these passages. The Daniel verses speak prophetically about an act completed in the future (from OT perspective). Corinthian, although also looking forward to future event - much nearer, however - it describes an event that is already beginning to happen. This is the transitional phase. Gordon Fee, in his writing on this very passage admitted to being puzzled by the wording of a certain verse here. He wrote:

"“The grammar of this sentence is somewhat puzzling…” “The sentence literally reads, “The last enemy is being destroyed.”" (from his commentary "The First Epistle to the Corinthians", p.756.

 

[percho]

I believe that applying this passage to a future "end", rather than to the end of the Old Covenant, creates more problems than it solves.

Concerning this end in Corinthians, it helps to check out other passages. Notably Daniel 12, where there is a threefold point of connection:

1. A "resurrection" unto "eternal life" (Dan.)/ "incorruptibility" (Cor)
2. An "end" (Dan. 12:4; 1 Cor. 15:24)
3. Victory over the "holy people" (v. 7 - ref. to Old Covenant)/ over the Law (56)

There is, as well, an interesting distinction between these passages. The Daniel verses speak prophetically about an act completed in the future (from OT perspective). Corinthian, although also looking forward to future event - much nearer, however - it describes an event that is already beginning to happen. This is the transitional phase. Gordon Fee, in his writing on this very passage admitted to being puzzled by the wording of a certain verse here. He wrote:

"“The grammar of this sentence is somewhat puzzling…” “The sentence literally reads, “The last enemy is being destroyed.”" (from his commentary "The First Epistle to the Corinthians", p.756.

Right. The end, is a reference to the end of death. And the beginning of the end of death began with the resurrection of Christ.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. --- By resurrection.

But every man in his own order: Death will be ended in the order of;

Christ the firstfruit. The beginning, the firstborn from the dead Col 1:18

afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. Death will be ended for them at that time. At that time Christ will be the firstborn of many brethren ------- However there will still be death taking place on the earth, for up to a thousand years according to Rev. 20.

Then the end, the end of death.

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Rev 20:13

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. V 14 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. V 15


Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: (the firstfruit) According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children (they that are Christ's at his coming. 1 Cor 15:23, Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Luke 20:36) by Jesus Christ (the first fruit) to himself, (God the Father)according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. Eph 1:3-6

Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: (God the Father) V 10

What?

Verse 11 That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (self, God the Father)

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 1 Cor 5:18,19

I will end on this note.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Rev 20:15

BTW this blends in with the covenant Icon and I were speaking of in another thread.

 

[asterisktom]

Right. The end, is a reference to the end of death. And the beginning of the end of death began with the resurrection of Christ.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. --- By resurrection.
...

But I believe the death referred to here is not physical death, but that which comes from being "stung" by the Law, acc. to this very chapter. That sting is sin. As Paul says in Romans 7:9:

"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

At the very time Christ inexorably in AD 70 did away with the Old Covenant with its killing Law He also did away with death - covenant death.

 

[percho]

But I believe the death referred to here is not physical death, but that which comes from being "stung" by the Law, acc. to this very chapter. That sting is sin. As Paul says in Romans 7:9:

"For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died."

At the very time Christ inexorably in AD 70 did away with the Old Covenant with its killing Law He also did away with death - covenant death.

I believe it is the following death being spoken of and BTW I know, no Hebrew.
I believe the following is, "the death," spoken of through out the word of God.

מִמֶּנּוּ מֹות תָּמֽוּ

Christ died (from the above, whatever that means) for our sins.
Christ was made alive, resurrected from (the above, whatever that means).

But every man in his own order:

That is the death the first fruit was made alive from and that is the death all others will be made alive from, who are made alive.