Is the Second coming prophesied in the OT?

[Guest]

It is clear that this passage is sufficiently ambiguous as to allow more than one eschatological system to claim it. It cannot then be used to prove one system over another, but rather, its meaning must be determined by the best way of understanding it in terms of a system derived from broader scriptural considerations and clearer passages.

The original reason for Ely's bring this passage up was to suggest an answer to the original question of whether or not there are any Old Testament prophecies that speak of the second coming. My answer was that I do not know of any, and in my understanding of biblical eschatology, and what appears to be the most sensible reading of the passage in Acts 3, this passage does not present a challenge to my conclusions.

The decision between millennial systems, however, does not depend upon the answer to the particular question that began this thread. It is entirely possible for one to see no reference to the second coming in the Old Testament, and yet, upon other grounds, to be either premillennial or amillennial. The reverse is also true. One might, even if he thinks he sees some references to the second coming in the Old Testament (depending upon which passages he sees them in), still be either amillennial or premillennial, due to other, more germaine considerations.

It is true that my amillennial view of eschatology both arises from and informs my understanding of specific passages in both testaments. There are a few Old Testament passages that I once thought applied to the second coming (e.g., Daniel 7:13; Zechariah 12 & 14; and a few others), though it was more frequent that I applied some passage to a future millennium, and presupposed the prior coming of the Lord, though it was not specifically mentioned in the passage.

My change of mind on these passages was not dictated by my changed views about the millennium, though my amillennial paradigm may well have allowed me to be more open-minded about seeing them in a new light. My decision about each passage was made on a case-by-case basis, as I studied and taught through the Bible year-by-year at the Great Commission School, from 1983 through 1999. During those years, I was obliged to teach verse-by-verse through the prophetic books every year. When I started the school, I was already an amillennialist, but had not considered carefully every passage in the Old Testament (my familiarity with the New Testament, in those early days, was greater than my familiarity with the Old--an imbalance that was, of necessity, destined to change).

When I first began teaching the prophets at the school, I still interpreted some passages as I had in my premillennial years. It was a default interpretation that had been downloaded from those who had earlier taught me. In many cases, I could not see how these default interpretations of these passages would be negatively impacted by my being either premillennial or amillennial. I am still not sure that they would have to be affected by this. My change of mind on each passage occurred as I studied each passage in its context, and observed the manner in which the New Testament writers applied it (or similar passages).

My biblical reasons for believing premillennialism to be the wrong understanding of eschatology are a multitude. However, the presence or absence of mention of the second coming in the Old Testament hardly impacts the question one way or the other.