Reasons for the 2nd Coming of Christ

[John of Japan]

Does that not include the question of “when?”

Not in my opinion. Please look again at the OP.

There are a number of purposes for this thread. The primary one is to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ. Another is just that it is a great Bible study, and might lead into sermons or SS lessons for those of us who are in full time ministry.

Another reason for this thread--let me be frank--is that full preterism cannot, simply cannot, claim all of these, or even any but one, to have been fulfilled in AD 70.

 

[agedman]

Another reason for this thread--let me be frank--is that full preterism cannot, simply cannot, claim all of these, or even any but one, to have been fulfilled in AD 70.

By stating exactly the timing AND events that are related to that specifically named in Scriptures as the second coming, would seem supportive of the OP.

But, then you wanted the thread restricted to the blessings, only, and I don’t seem to be able to remove the timing and reign from being a blessing. The timing itself is a promise resulting in hope.

 

[asterisktom]

Unfortunately for full preterists, they won't be able to cogently post on this thread, since they believe the 2nd Coming happened spiritually in AD 70. So to them it's over and done with, nothing left (a very bleak position).

This comment betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Preterist position. "Over and done with"? Are we talking about an event or a Person? Surely you know, John, what "parousia" means - not just coming but presence.

I recommend for students of the Bible to just study the occurrences of "parousia" in the NT (I think there were 14) and study out the meaning as derived from context. "Presence" seems to be the overriding meaning, although "coming" is necessarily a part of it.

A good prosaic illustration of "parousia" might be Mom warning misbehaving children, "Just you wait until your father gets home!"

Obviously the emphasis is on Dad's presence, not his coming into the home.

Edit: 24 occurrences of "parousia"

 

[agedman]

This comment betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Preterist position. "Over and done with"? Are we talking about an event or a Person? Surely you know, John, what "parousia" means - not just coming but presence.

I recommend for students of the Bible to just study the occurrences of "parousia" in the NT (I think there were 14) and study out the meaning as derived from context. "Presence" seems to be the overriding meaning, although "coming" is necessarily a part of it.

A good prosaic illustration of "parousia" might be Mom warning misbehaving children, "Just you wait until your father gets home!"

Obviously the emphasis is on Dad's presence, not his coming into the home.

But see that very point is a significant problem with the preterist view.

It is thinking that the “presence” is without an actual bone and flesh body.

parousia - the second coming, the literal physical “presence” of the Lord.

However, the preterist choice of which word definition best fits their scheme does not allow for presence to actually mean that someone is actually in attendance.

 

[John of Japan]

This comment betrays a profound misunderstanding of the Preterist position. "Over and done with"? Are we talking about an event or a Person? Surely you know, John, what "parousia" means - not just coming but presence.

I recommend for students of the Bible to just study the occurrences of "parousia" in the NT (I think there were 14) and study out the meaning as derived from context. "Presence" seems to be the overriding meaning, although "coming" is necessarily a part of it.

It quite often means "coming" and it also often means "presence," though that is not the "overriding meaning." The word is translated far more times as "coming" than "presence" in the KJV.

When it means "presence" it always means a physical presence, as in Phil. 2:12. So simply saying it means "presence" does not get the preterist off the hook.

A good prosaic illustration of "parousia" might be Mom warning misbehaving children, "Just you wait until your father gets home!"

Obviously the emphasis is on Dad's presence, not his coming into the home.

That usage would be that Dad is coming home, because Dad will never have a presence in the home if he doesn't come home. Nice try, but no cigar.

Edit: 24 occurrences of "parousia"

Correct.

But now, please get back to the actual OP of the thread. If Christ's 2nd Coming was in AD 70, what was the purpose other than judgement? And please prove your point from Scripture, don't just state it.

 

[Yeshua1]

It quite often means "coming" and it also often means "presence," though that is not the "overriding meaning." The word is translated far more times as "coming" than "presence" in the KJV.

When it means "presence" it always means a physical presence, as in Phil. 2:12. So simply saying it means "presence" does not get the preterist off the hook.

That usage would be that Dad is coming home, because Dad will never have a presence in the home if he doesn't come home. Nice try, but no cigar.

Correct.

But now, please get back to the actual OP of the thread. If Christ's 2nd Coming was in AD 70, what was the purpose other than judgement? And please prove your point from Scripture, don't just state it.

Interesting the the JW also have Jesus returning only spiritually!

 

[asterisktom]

But now, please get back to the actual OP of the thread. If Christ's 2nd Coming was in AD 70, what was the purpose other than judgement? And please prove your point from Scripture, don't just state it.

The purpose was twofold. At least that is what Paul mentioned when he gave con=mfort to the Thessalonians in the first century.

"6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Notice that this promise was to them. They were promised relief from the ones troubling them. Reading Acts you can see that it was the Jews that caused the trouble, just as they did throughout the whole areas where the Apostles went with the gospel of grace.

 

[Iconoclast]

At the second coming Eternal peace and Rest are put into.place.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The purpose was twofold. At least that is what Paul mentioned when he gave con=mfort to the Thessalonians in the first century.

"6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Notice that this promise was to them. They were promised relief from the ones troubling them. Reading Acts you can see that it was the Jews that caused the trouble, just as they did throughout the whole areas where the Apostles went with the gospel of grace.

just a few things wrong with this:
First, the Lord Jesus was not revealed from heaven with His mighty angels. Nobody saw them
Secondly, those troubling the Thessalonians at the time Paul was writing to them were their 'own countrymen' (1 Thessalonians 2:14).
Thirdly, not all the cities where Paul went had Jewish populations. Philippi and Lystra didn't because Paul didn't make his customary trip to the synagogue in those places. [ Philippi was a settlement created for veterans of Augustine's army after the Battle of Actium] The Philippians were 'eagerly wait[ing] for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ' (Philippians 3:20-21) not because they were being persecuted by non-existent Jews but because they were looking forward to the Resurrection when Christ 'will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body.'

 

[Iconoclast]

At the second coming All Saints are glorified and no longer able to sin.

 

[agedman]

At the second coming All Saints are glorified and no longer able to sin.

Correct.

Why the return wasn’t in 70AD

 

[Iconoclast]

Partial preterists do not believe 70 ad was a second coming....

 

[John of Japan]

The purpose was twofold. At least that is what Paul mentioned when he gave con=mfort to the Thessalonians in the first century.

"6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Notice that this promise was to them. They were promised relief from the ones troubling them. Reading Acts you can see that it was the Jews that caused the trouble, just as they did throughout the whole areas where the Apostles went with the gospel of grace.

I only have a minute, but I can say to this: apparently God failed then, if Christ came in AD 70, because Thessalonica is far from Jerusalem. The events of Jerusalem in AD 70 did not spill over into that city. And if you reply that God punished the Jews, then you must prove that the Jews of Thessalonica were punished.

Furthermore, we have already given many reasons why Christ will come that full preterism cannot claim--positive reasons of blessing to God's people.

 

[Covenanter]

The purpose was twofold. At least that is what Paul mentioned when he gave con=mfort to the Thessalonians in the first century.

"6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Notice that this promise was to them. They were promised relief from the ones troubling them. Reading Acts you can see that it was the Jews that caused the trouble, just as they did throughout the whole areas where the Apostles went with the gospel of grace.

I disagree, Tom. Certainly the Thessalonian Jews were the instigators of the persecution of the new believers, including in Berea, but 2 Thes. 1 reads with a finality.

9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10 when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.​

Through both letters Paul has been teaching about Jesus coming for the blessing of the believers & the punishment of the wicked. 1 Thessalonians 5 spells it out.

2 For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. 3 For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. 4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief.​

There were many warnings relating to AD 70, so that event didn't come as a thief but the final return we do expect will be unannounced by signs.

Mark 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
32 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Take heed, watch and pray; for you do not know when the time is.
34 It is like a man going to a far country, who left his house and gave authority to his servants, and to each his work, and commanded the doorkeeper to watch. 35 Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the house is coming—in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing of the rooster, or in the morning— 36 lest, coming suddenly, he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say to you, I say to all: Watch!”​

 

[Covenanter]

Then we come to 2 Thes. 2 giving events that will take place before Jesus final coming - the rebellion & corrupt occupation of the temple.

The AD 70 coming was specific for the judgment of this generation that rejected its Messiah.

Back to the OP -
The second (final) coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is for the vindication & glorification of Jesus himself & all his redeemed people down the ages.

 

[asterisktom]

I only have a minute, but I can say to this: apparently God failed then, if Christ came in AD 70, because Thessalonica is far from Jerusalem. The events of Jerusalem in AD 70 did not spill over into that city. And if you reply that God punished the Jews, then you must prove that the Jews of Thessalonica were punished.

I suppose you have not read Josephus. Or that you have not considered the application of Luke 17:37:

"And answering they *said to Him, “Where, Lord?” And He said to them, “Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered.”"

The disaster at Jerusalem spread ripple-like throughout the Roman Empire, wherever there were Jews. They never again had their former power to harass true believers. Thousands, not only lost their political immunity, nut were massacred in places like Antioch, Caesarea, Alexandria, Cyrene. Certainly Thessalonica was also affected.

However if you want Biblical proof that the Thessalonians were punished it will not forthcoming, because all of the Bible was written before AD70.

 

[asterisktom]

just a few things wrong with this:
First, the Lord Jesus was not revealed from heaven with His mighty angels. Nobody saw them
Secondly, those troubling the Thessalonians at the time Paul was writing to them were their 'own countrymen' (1 Thessalonians 2:14).
Thirdly, not all the cities where Paul went had Jewish populations. Philippi and Lystra didn't because Paul didn't make his customary trip to the synagogue in those places. [ Philippi was a settlement created for veterans of Augustine's army after the Battle of Actium] The Philippians were 'eagerly wait[ing] for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ' (Philippians 3:20-21) not because they were being persecuted by non-existent Jews but because they were looking forward to the Resurrection when Christ 'will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body.'

Yes, there were some places like places, like Philippi that may not have had Jews (though this is hard t totally disprove). And it was indeed the pagan countrymen that instigated the initial problems at Philippi. But this is beside the point. The problems is not the Jews as residents, but their teaching. Look at Philippians again. Can you honestly not see that the Jewish influence was not a real focus of Paul here? Chapter 3 especially is full of his warning and admonitions against Judaizing doctrine.

And as I we see throughout Acts, they did not stop at mere teaching, but were instigaters of all kinds of trouble for the believers. Yes, you are right, they are not behind every troublous event. Only most of them.

 

[asterisktom]

Yes, there were some places like places, like Philippi that may not have had Jews (though this is hard t totally disprove). And it was indeed the pagan countrymen that instigated the initial problems at Philippi. But this is beside the point. The problems is not the Jews as residents, but their teaching. Look at Philippians again. Can you honestly not see that the Jewish influence was not a real focus of Paul here? Chapter 3 especially is full of his warning and admonitions against Judaizing doctrine.

And as I we see throughout Acts, they did not stop at mere teaching, but were instigaters of all kinds of trouble for the believers. Yes, you are right, they are not behind every troublous event. Only most of them.

---------------------

I have 5 minutes left before my ride comes - and much more that I wanted to write. The one thread is closed so I will write it here.

John of J, I dont know why you think I am against the Gfreek lexicons. I had some well-worn and marked ones. I have studied it for many years. Both in and out of school( BJU).You misunderstand me. I assume you are tryin gto make me out as some sort of "just me and my Bible" kind of yahoo. I just don't agree with your application (many times) of the Greek.

Ride is here gotta go

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, there were some places like places, like Philippi that may not have had Jews (though this is hard to totally disprove).

If there were Jews in a city, they had a synagogue, and if there was a synagogue, Paul went there. You see that all through Acts (e.g. 14:1; 17:2).
.

And it was indeed the pagan countrymen that instigated the initial problems at Philippi.

There is no mention whatsoever in Actsof any Jewish influence at Philippi. In Thessalonica, the initial problem came from Jews, but the later problems from pagan Thessalonians.
.

But this is beside the point. The problems is not the Jews as residents, but their teaching. Look at Philippians again. Can you honestly not see that the Jewish influence was not a real focus of Paul here? Chapter 3 especially is full of his warning and admonitions against Judaizing doctrine.

Paul gives 5 verses in Philippians out of 104 to countering the Judaizers. To be sure their teaching was a concern to him, but

And as I we see throughout Acts, they did not stop at mere teaching, but were instigaters of all kinds of trouble for the believers. Yes, you are right, they are not behind every troublous event. Only most of them.

No evidence at all that Jews were causing most of the trouble. Paul was allowed to debate in the synagogue in Ephesus for three months, which actually seems quite generous of them. The serious opposition in Ephesus, of course, came from the pagans (Acts 19:23ff). The letters in Revelation (which you insist have to be pre-AD 70) have some mentions of Jews (2:9; 3:9), but it is not clear if the people mentioned were actually Jews or not.
The really serious persecution of Christians pre-AD 70, of course, was in Rome, instigated by Nero, which dwarfs any Jewish opposition.

Nor did the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 put an end to Jewish rebellion. There were revolts in Alexandria, Cyrene, Egypt and Libya, Cyprus and Mesopotamia around 100-110 AD (c.f. The Spreading Flame by F.F. Bruce). Also Christians in Judea suffered serious persecution from the Jews during the Bar Kokhba rebellion in AD 135 since they would not countenance his messianic claims.

So contrary to the claims of Preterists, AD 70, though a tragic event, was not an earth-shattering happening. Christians away from Judea would have been far more concerned about the 'Year of the Four Emperors' in AD 69.

 

[John of Japan]

Then we come to 2 Thes. 2 giving events that will take place before Jesus final coming - the rebellion & corrupt occupation of the temple.

The AD 70 coming was specific for the judgment of this generation that rejected its Messiah.

Back to the OP -
The second (final) coming of the Lord Jesus Christ is for the vindication & glorification of Jesus himself & all his redeemed people down the ages.

The preterist problem is that all of their reasons for the supposed coming in AD 70 are negative, as are Covenanter's here. However, the overwhelming majority of passages about the 2nd Coming are positive, as hopefully we've seen on this thread.

To give just one example, preterists never talk about how Jesus may have gathered His disciples to take them to be with Him, as in John 14:1-3. But this is an awesome and wonderful aspect to Christ's Second Coming. Again, they never talk about what an incentive the Second Coming is to purity, as in 1 John 3:3. Well, if Christ came in AD 70, as the preterists think, then what does that have to do with me? It is no longer an incentive to purity.