Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183636 | ||
Hi, We must be careful that we do not just fit Scripture into a neat pattern. It is dealing with matters of huge complexity. For example there is no doubt that Jesus came to His disciples at Pentecost. His promise was 'lo I am with you always even to the end of the age (Matthew 28.20). It is not enough to say that He came in the Holy Spirit. He was talking about Himself personally. At Pentecost they were to see 'the Son of Man coming in His Kingly Rule (Matthew 16.28) which had to happen in the disciples' lifetime and it continued on through Acts. Indeed we must distinguish His coming in power (to happen 'from now on' - Matthew 26.64 which has in mind Daniel 7.13-14 where the coming is to the throne of God but as Jesus says to be revealed in power on earth - 'you will see') from His coming in glory (Matthew 16.27; 24.30-31). But this is not to see two 'second comings'. If you like His coming in power was a continuation of His first coming. Actually the Bible does not speak of a 'second coming' (although it does speak of His coming personally at the consummation of all things). Jesus' activity is not to be limited to two events, although His bodily ptresence is. We must not be tied down to a primitive way of simplifying the complexity of God's ways. We do love to systematise everything. And then if we are not careful we become arrogant and think that only we are right. With regard to interpreting the Old Testament we should recognise that the New Testament sees much of it as fulfilled in the heavenly Kingdom and the true Jerusalem as being the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4.24-28; Hebrews 12.22; and regularly in Revelation. The New Testament does not take the 'literalist' stand. It recognises thet the Old Testament prophets had to describe things in the terms that could be understood in their own day (there was then no conception of a possible hevenly kingdom), but much of what they said could not be taken literally (although of course much could). We must use discernment. For fuller treatments of these subjects see http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/ |
||||||
2 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183671 | ||
jonp, You made some wonderful points. I would take issue with only on thing your wrote. You wrote: Actually the Bible does not speak of a 'second coming'... There is one reference I found regarding a second coming: Heb. 9:28- so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him. Other than that I don't see any explicit reference in Scripture to more than two "comings" of Christ. He appeared once to bear the sins of man and he appeared a second time to those who were eagerly awaiting his return. Coper |
||||||
3 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183684 | ||
Hi Coper Thank you for your reply. My point was that 'Th Second Coming' was not a Biblical phrase as though it was a subject in itself. But you will note that I did also say that there would only be two physical comings (thus ruling out a rapture before the final consummation). But if Jesus could say 'Lo I am with you always' then clearly He was intending to return in invisible power to accompany His disciples on their worldwide mission. Further more He said, 'If a man loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him' thus having in mind many comings. Compare also Revelation 3.20 which teaches the same. See http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp |
||||||
4 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183720 | ||
jonp, I understand what you're saying regarding the second coming not being treated as a subject in Scripture in and of itself. Point well taken. Re-reading Rev. chapter 3 reminded me of another time-frame passage. In Rev. 3:10 John writes to the church in Philadelphia: "Behold you have kept the word of my perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing , that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth." This is another time-frame verse that needs to be explained by those who believe the return of Christ still has not taken place. What did John mean by "about to come upon the whole world"? See also- I John 2:18 Coper |
||||||
5 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183735 | ||
Hi Coper Thank you for your question about Revelation 3.10. Firstly we should point out that 'about to come on the whole world' is an interpretive translation. Literally it is 'is coming on the whole world' (no time frame). But this is talking about the hour of testing not the Parousia. Such hours of testing have come again and again through history. It certainly cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem for that was of very limited effect, however intense it might have been for those involved. This trial was to be widespread. 'On the whole world' was looking from John's perspective of the world of his day. It was hyperbole. Compare 'from every nation under heaven' in Acts 2.5 and 'your faith is proclaimed in all the world' in Romans 1.8 neither of which can be taken literally. John was talking of widespread trials and testings. Certainly the first century Christians experienced such an 'hour of trial'. Christians through the ages have experienced such hours of trial. Many are similarly experiencing an hour of trial today. To all such Jesus said 'I am coming soon'. But as Peter makes clear 'soon' in Gods timetable can be a thousand years, and we can add two thousand years. For with God that is but 'two days' (2 Peter 3.3-10). The same applies to 'the last hour' in 1 John 2.18. It is likening history to a day and saying that we are in the final hour. But again we need to remember that with God an hour can be what we see as a long time. Just as the church has been in 'the last days' for two thousand years (Hebrews 1.1-3: Acts 2.17). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
6 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | Coper44 | 183920 | ||
jonp, The KJV-NIV-Greek Interlinear I have shows Rev. 3:10 as "...being about to come..." You say "this is talking about the hour of testing not the Parousia." However, wasn't the hour of testing to lead up to the soon coming of Christ John just told them about earlier? I'm glad you brought up the 2 Pet. 3:3-10 passage. You wrote, "But as Peter makes clear 'soon' in Gods timetable can be a thousand years, and we can add two thousand years. For with God that is but 'two days'". This is another passage where it seems the futurist misses the point. Lets Look at the passage: 2Pet 3:1This is now the second letter that I am writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, 2that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles, 3knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. 4They will say, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." 5For they deliberately overlook this fact, that the heavens existed long ago, and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God, 6and that by means of these the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. 8But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. I believe that Peter was looking BACK to the days of Noah (about two thousand years I believe) when he said that "one day is as a thousand years". He was telling them how to handle the scoffers that would come in the last days, in which they were living (Heb. 1), saying: "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation." He was comforting those who might become discouraged as the mocking and the persecution increased. It makes no sense for Peter to tell them that Christ may come soon or He may come two thousand years in the future. Coper |
||||||